Sitting of 10 May 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Eric Joyce: If he will make a statement on the impact of his budget on the incomes of pensioners. [159873]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): As a result of our personal tax and benefit changes in Budgets since 1997, pensioner households will be on average £600 a year better off. The basic pension has increased from April by £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for couples. I can also confirm that we value the winter allowance, the Christmas bonus and free television licences for over-75s and that they will be retained. We will reject options that put at risk the basic pension.
    Mr. Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of pensioners in my constituency could only be grossly damaged by the Tories abysmal plans for pensions—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is out of order.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really believe that pensioners—people who have lived a very long time—are going to be fooled by a pension increase that he gives them just before a general election? Will not pensioners' enduring memory of this period of office be that they were given a miserly 75p by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Was that not only one of a series of major gaffes that the Chancellor has made, and is it not the case that he has
    246
    started this election campaign with a series of gaffes on tax and public spending that have left his economic policy in disarray?
    Mr. Brown: What the electors of this country remember is that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury when VAT was put on fuel. Let us consider what has really been happening in the past few years. First, there was the winter allowance, which Conservative Members opposed. Secondly, there were free television licences for the elderly, but Conservative Members opposed them. They also wanted to abolish the Christmas bonus, and they do not want the pension credit.
    This morning, the shadow Chancellor said on television, "You are perfectly right that if people choose to take the option to move out of paying into the national insurance fund, there would not be as much money to pay current pensioners. So we have to fill the pump, and we can do that by a variety of ways, but for a start by selling gilt. Some of you will have spotted that if people are moving out of the national insurance fund there will be a hole in it. Yes, that is true."
    So now we know that not only do Conservative Members oppose the winter allowance, free television licences, the pension credit and the Christmas bonus, they are putting at risk the very basic state pension by their proposals to allow people to opt out of the basic pension and to privatise it. They would run up massive borrowing and debt. They are not competent on pensions, and they are not competent to run the economy.
    Mr. Portillo: No one will believe that nonsense from the Chancellor, but people will remember him as being completely insincere, completely ineffective and completely irresponsible. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was elected to deal with the welfare state, and he was the man who said that he would reform welfare. However, now that the Opposition have made a proposition to make future generations of pensioners much better off and remove the liability on future generations of taxpayers to pay taxes into the future, all he can do is try to make cheap political points.
    It is the Conservative party that has the courage to look to the future and the idealism to aspire that future generations of pensioners should be better off. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, by taxing the pension funds and by drawing ever more people into means-tested benefits, has ended up with 700,000 more people living in poverty.
    Mr. Brown: It is very interesting that at the last Treasury Question Time of this Parliament, the shadow Chancellor cannot answer the question that has been put to him—[Interruption.] This morning, when the shadow Chancellor was asked on television how he would finance the basic pension in future years as a result of proposals that would allow thousands, perhaps millions, of people to opt out of the basic pension, his only answer was, "Well, we would have to discuss that with financiers. It might be bonds. It might be any system."
    After four years in opposition, Conservative Members come to the electorate with pension proposals for people to opt out of the national state pension, that would raid the national insurance fund and put pensions at risk for

    247
    millions of pensioners who are now insecure as a result of those announcements by Conservative Members, yet they cannot tell us how they would fund their proposals.
    I will tell the House who the losers are: in Kensington and Chelsea, 12,000 pensioners are benefiting from the rise in the state pension; 13,000 are benefiting from the winter payment; and 6,000 are benefiting from free television licences. The Conservatives cannot be trusted on the economy; they cannot be trusted on tax; and now they cannot be trusted on the basic state pension.
    Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor has been peddling this nonsense all morning. Nobody believes him and he might as well give it up as it will not run. In just one respect, however, he was getting near the truth: the next time we meet across the Dispatch Box, I will be answering the questions. I will introduce a novelty to the House in respect of the past four years as I will answer the questions.
    In opposition, the Chancellor told us that he would end means testing for elderly people. He has wantonly increased the numbers of people who live in poverty and have to come cap in hand to the state in order to get a living wage and to pay the stealth taxes that he has imposed on them. Our alternative agenda is to allow pensioners to keep more of their money. We will never forget that it is the pensioners money. It is not the Government's money, the Chancellor's money or Gordon Brown's money. It is the people's money and we will allow people to keep more of their own money. We will increase by —2,000 the amount that pensioners can keep before they pay tax. Does not the Chancellor agree that that will be a winning policy with pensioners in this country?
    Mr. Brown: What I agree on is that the Conservatives have put in their manifesto a proposal that millions of people could potentially opt out of the basic state pension. That would mean that the national insurance fund would not have the money that was necessary. The Conservative Centre for Policy Studies has calculated that to be —6 billion. The Actuary has calculated it as —6 billion within three years. The question that the Conservatives must now answer is how they will fund the national insurance fund contributions that are necessary for the basic state pension without cutting the basic state pension or running up massive borrowing. When asked this morning whether he could fund the basic state pension, all the shadow Chancellor could say was, "I will have to discuss this matter with financiers. It could be bonds. It might be any system." So Conservative Members, some of whom are making a valedictory appearance, will have to explain—and we will get down to the detail—in every constituency in the country how their opt-out plans can go ahead without raiding the national insurance fund, putting the basic pension at risk or running up massive debts and massive borrowing that would have to be paid for with higher interest rates. Although the shadow Chancellor refuses to answer the question today, and Conservative Members have now fallen silent, they will have to answer that question in each constituency up and down the country.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend ignores the rantings of the shadow Chancellor and spends his energy
    248
    and effort on developing the pension credit? A fully developed earnings-related pension credit could be the future new deal for pensioners in constituencies such as mine.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I applaud the work that he has done during his parliamentary career in support of pensioners and employment in his constituency. He is absolutely right. The Conservatives opposed our plan for the new pension credit. Nor is it supported in their manifesto. They are against the winter allowance and free television licences; they are against the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit and now they propose putting the basic state pension at risk. If that is the Conservative pledge for pensioners, I doubt whether they will want to give it out to pensioners in any constituency.
    Mr. John Redwood: Why should any pensioner trust this Chancellor when he has just stung elderly people in care homes with a new stealth VAT charge which will cost some of them more than the miserly 75p a week increase in the pension? Will he promise to abolish it? Will he support abolition and will he apologise to all the pensioners who will be stung yet again by his dreadful stealth charges?
    Mr. Brown: That is completely incorrect. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have wished to acknowledge the authorship of the opt-out pension plans. After all, he and others wrote pamphlets in the 1980s saying that people should opt out of the basic state pension. He is now controlling the policy of his Front Benchers from the Back Benches, but he, too, will have to answer to his constituents. Why does he put the basic state pension, the winter allowance and the pensioner credit at risk? Each Conservative Member will have to answer those questions.

    Public Investment
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of national income spent on public investment. [159874]
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What real terms increases he plans in investment in public services in each of the next three years. [159876]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): When the Government came to power, public sector net investment was equal to 0.5 per cent. of national income. The plans set out in the 2000 spending review will increase net investment to 1.7 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2003–04—a doubling of net public investment. The Government, with our expenditure and investment in health, education, transport and the infrastructure, are turning around 20 years of underinvestment and modernising our public services.
    Ms Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because increased investment in my constituency means a modernised accident and emergency department, new school buildings and work starting on major transport infrastructure projects. After years of Tory neglect, my constituents know that we need that investment to

    249
    continue if we are to regenerate the area properly. Can my right hon. Friend give me that commitment and will he also give a high priority to housing investment, so that a hallmark of the next Government will be a decent home for all?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does on behalf of her constituents. She is absolutely right, and additional investment in housing is included in the public expenditure review. Equally, 68 hospital projects are proceeding as a result of decisions made since 1997, 17,000 schools have been improved and we are recruiting more nurses, teachers, doctors and consultants. That is the way forward to rebuild the public services. The choice at the election will be between those who would invest in the public services and those who would cut investment. Conservative Members will have to go back to their constituencies and explain which hospitals and schools they would cut, which nurses they would make unemployed and which teachers they would make redundant.
    Mr. Dobbin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The investment so far in the schools and hospitals that serve my constituency has brought definite improvements and is most welcome, but what is needed is a second Labour term in which a sustained radical programme of investment, in partnership with local government and other public bodies, would provide the quality services that the people of this country deserve and demand. Will he guarantee that?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work that he does. Education expenditure is rising by £4 billion a year and it will continue to rise by £4 billion a year under our spending plans. Equally, health service expenditure is rising by £5 billion a year. It is rising from £49 billion to £54 billion to £58 billion to £64 billion. When have the Conservatives ever been able to talk about measures of investment as good as those and on a sustainable basis? I know that the choice in the coming campaign will be between more investment under this party and cuts in investment under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Would the Chancellor advise voters to take more account of his plans for public spending or more account of his record? Will he for once admit that his record on public spending is as bad as that of the Conservatives, with average spending on health and education in this Parliament lower as a proportion of national income, not higher? Will he also admit that even at the end of the current spending review, Labour will spend less in 2003–04 as a proportion of national income than the Tories did in 15 out of those dreadful 18 years?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me to talk about my record as well as my ambitions. Schools capital will have risen from the £600 million we inherited to £3.2 billion. Some 17,000 schools are benefiting from modernisation. In individual schools, an extra £3,200 brings the total amount paid to many primary school head teachers to £9,750. A typical secondary school head teacher can get up to £115,000 for the school.
    250
    That is what we have done already, but in addition we plan to make available an extra £4 billion every year. I remind the hon. Gentleman, now that we are considering the past as well as the present and future, that the Government introduced a windfall tax on the utilities when we came to power. More than £1 billion of that money has gone to schools, but the Liberal Democrat party opposed the windfall tax. Will he say whether he still opposes it, as that is money that has gone to schools and education?
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the Chancellor noted that the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission have both publicly warned him that his public expenditure plans are unsustainable, that they are incompatible with the European stability pact to which he unwisely signed up, and that they must inevitably lead to both inflation and higher taxes?
    Mr. Brown: First, the stability pact that the hon. Gentleman finds so unacceptable was signed not by me, but by the previous Conservative Government. Secondly, he puts himself into a difficult position given his history as an ally of the European Commission. I will tell him what I told the Commission, which is that we will stick to our spending plans. They are the right spending plans for this country, and mean more hospitals, schools, teachers and doctors. They are what the people of this country want. The choice is between investing more under a Labour Government and major cuts in investment under a Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman no doubt supports those cuts, but the Conservative party will have to explain them.
    Ms Margaret Moran: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for putting extra public investment into housing, which was desperately needed after the previous Conservative Government slashed billions of pounds off housing investment. Will he commit to putting further investment into housing over the next four years to ensure that the homeless have a hope of a home, and that council tenants can enjoy security and investment in their homes? Does he agree that the Government's investment pledges are in sharp contrast to what the Opposition propose? The previous Conservative Government slashed investment in housing, and in their dying days removed the safety net for the homeless. More recently, the Opposition have blocked the Homes Bill, thus preventing further hope for the homeless. They now plan to sell council homes over the heads of their tenants, who will have no choice in the matter.
    Mr. Brown: As always, my hon. Friend puts her constituents case very well. We will continue our spending plans on housing, health and education, because they are right for her constituents and for the constituents of every Member of Parliament. People will look at the Conservative plans for spending cuts, but they will also see that huge additional spending commitments have been slipped into the Conservative manifesto. They include family scholarship schemes, progress centres outside schools, a cops-in-shops initiative, secure training centres—[Interruption.] Tory Members are now cheering public expenditure.

    251
    The problem for Conservative Members is that they will have to explain why none of their figures add up. They have made tax promises that are way in excess of what the country can afford. They say that they will cut spending, but are unable to deliver. Then, to please different sections of the electorate, they make spending commitments that they cannot afford. There are so many people on the Conservative bandwagon that there is not enough room left for the band.

    Married Couples Allowance
    Mr. Tony Baldry: How many people have been affected by the abolition of the married couples allowance. [159875]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We are replacing the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit as part of a package of measures to focus resources on families with children. The children's tax credit is worth over twice as much as the married couples allowance and will benefit about 5 million families.
    Mr. Baldry: I declare an interest in the answer to this question, as I am getting married in 15 days. Does the Paymaster General accept that the abolition of the married couples allowance was in effect a stealth tax on marriage, and that about 5 million couples who benefited from the allowance do not benefit from the child tax credit system? Does she also agree that 1 million of those who could benefit from the child tax credit system do not, and will not, because they have not applied for it? As a result, 6 million families are worse off. Would not it be much more straightforward to reintroduce a married couples allowance that would benefit all families with children under 11 years of age? I am glad to say that that will not include me.
    Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his marriage in 15 days' time. I am sure that he would accept that he is not in need of any financial encouragement to get married and does not believe that he would have benefited from the married couples allowance.
    The resources used for the married couples allowance were paid regardless of marital status. The allowance was paid to single parents, divorcees and couples. The Government have focused those resources on supporting families with children. Some 85 per cent. of those who are entitled to receive the £520 a year through the children's tax credit have applied for it. I am sure that after the hon. Gentleman's wedding, he will join the Government in campaigning to ensure that the remaining 15 per cent. receive that money as well.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I served on several Finance Bills during the previous Parliament, in which the Conservatives cut and cut the married couples allowance without any compensating action for families. Is it not the case that the majority of people welcome the Government's focus on child poverty, and that they welcome not only the children's tax credit but the record increase in child benefit, the working
    252
    families tax credit and child care tax credits, which have benefited families more than twice over, as my hon. Friend has said?
    Dawn Primarolo: I understand that this will be my hon. Friend's last appearance in this House as he takes up his full duties in the Scottish Parliament. His campaigning for the Government to tackle child poverty is well known. He has made a substantial contribution to the development of the policies on the working families tax credit, the increase in child benefit and the increase in income support levels. Those policies have ensured that the Government have already lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, and intend in the next Parliament to lift another 1 million children out of poverty.

    Pensioners (Taxation)
    Mr. John Bercow: What plans he has to review the taxation of pensioners. [159878]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of our policies, seven out of 10 pensioners pay no tax or pay tax only at the l0p rate. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, following our personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average since 1997.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that the savings ratio has fallen to its lowest level since 1963, that millions of pensioners face billions of pounds worth of extra taxes, and that half of all pensioners are get to be on means-tested benefits by 2003, why does the right hon. Gentleman not increase the age-related personal allowance by £2,000 and take 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether? Those are Conservative policies to help people who work hard, who save hard, who try to be independent of the state and who believe in this country.
    Mr. Smith: We are helping all pensioners with the increase in the basic state pension and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, giving greatest help to the poorest pensioners. We introduced the winter allowance, which Conservative Members opposed and would abolish. We will not adopt their proposals because they would do nothing to help the majority of pensioners. The distribution effects show that more than 90 per cent. of the benefit goes to the richest third of pensioners in the country, confirming 3et again that the Conservatives stand for the few whereas we stand for the many.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: The pensioners in my constituency who face the greatest difficulties are those who were badly affected by the scandalous collapse of Chester Street Holdings and who suffer from asbestos. related diseases. As this is the last Treasury Question Time before the election, does my right hon. Friend have any news for those people?
    Mr. Smith: I shall be setting out details in a written answer shortly, but I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have reached agreement with the insurance industry that the claims of Chester Street victims will be met by the industry using appropriate policyholder protection schemes. I am grateful for the flexibility shown

    253
    by the insurance industry in helping to cut through what was an extremely complex legal situation. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends on their campaign, which has ended the uncertainty that was hanging over the victims and their families.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I do something that is extremely relevant at Question Time? On this occasion, I thank the Minister for that reply to the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I, too, have campaigned with Members on both sides of the House to obtain justice for those who are dying from asbestos-related diseases—in particular, my constituent, Mr. Donald McCreery, who has only a few months to live. The announcement, in the dying hours of this Parliament, will bring great happiness to him and his family. I thank the Minister and the Government for the work that they and Back Benchers have done to bring about justice. Surely, that is what the House is about.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. As he says, there was an all-party commitment to resolve the matter. I am only too pleased that, as he says, in the dying hours of this Parliament we have been able to achieve that security and justice for people suffering from terrible diseases, who, with their families, would otherwise have been left in unendurable anxiety. I am pleased that they can look forward to the compensation to which they are entitled.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: The 13,240 pensioners in my constituency are extremely grateful for the extra income that they have received under the Labour Government after 18 very hard Tory years. Will my right hon. Friend give wide publicity to his plans for the pensioners tax credit, which will reward those pensioners who have been thrifty and saved hard all their lives?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend can look forward to extensive publicity promoting the benefits of the pensioners tax credit during the coming weeks and, thereafter, along with the other extra help that we have given pensioners, which is ensuring real increases in their living standards and real investment in the services on which they depend.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister recognise that pensioners Feel worse off under Labour? They resent the indignities of the means test, and they want to decide for themselves how their pension is invested. In the circumstances, will he support our policy of cutting tax on pensioners, of cutting tax on hard-earned savings and of reforming the annuities rule? In short, is not the best advice that he could give pensioners for the next election: vote Conservative?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman was cranking up the spending commitments like nothing on earth. However, the truth is that the Conservatives cannot pay for their proposals because they cannot identify the savings on which they claim those proposals depend. Their proposals would leave a black hole in the national insurance fund. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out, the shadow Chancellor—when challenged this morning about where he would find the money—could say only that he
    254
    would talk to financiers, that it might be bonds or that it might be any other system. What it certainly would be is borrowing, which would destabilise the economy, push up interest rates, cut real living standards for everybody and hit pensioners worst of all.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment today that the winter fuel allowance and free television licence for those aged 75 and over will remain tax-free? Can he explain why, before the Government took office, not a single penny was given to pensioners for heating, whereas under the present Government such assistance was given from the beginning?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank him for the work that he did on the campaign on television licences. The answer to his question is yes, we can guarantee that those will be free of tax and, yes, it is true that when the Conservative party was in government it did nothing to help pensioners in those ways. That summarises clearly the difference between the parties and the choice facing the people in the general election. We are standing up for pensioners' interests, keeping our promises and delivering rising living standards and better services, but all that would be at risk under the Conservatives.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Owen Paterson: When he expects that his five economic tests for British participation in EMU will be fulfilled. [159881]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government's position on the five economic tests for the euro was set out in a 1997 statement to the House. The Government have said that the assessment will be made early in the next Parliament, so that British business is prepared for the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002 in the euro area. I am today in consultation with business, publishing additional case studies showing how British businesses across a range of sectors have prepared for the introduction of the euro, thus helping British business to compete effectively in the single market, whether we are in or out of the euro.
    Mr. Paterson: Last week, the Chancellor got into the most terrible huff when the European Commission criticised his conduct of the economy. We all know from the Gould memo and from indiscretions on television that the Prime Minister wants to bundle us into the euro, against the wishes of the British people. As that will reduce the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom to that of office boy for the European Commission, will he now go through each of the five tests and give his interpretation of where we stand today?
    Mr. Brown: The Government's position is as set out on previous occasions. While we see the benefits in principle of the single currency, we shall subject it to five economic tests, which will be rigorously made early in the next Parliament. If we were to recommend that we join the single currency, we would report to Parliament, and then the people of this country would have the final say.

    255
    The difference between our two parties is that we are prepared to say that we support the single currency in principle, but will subject it to tests. The Conservative party cannot tell us whether it supports it in principle or is against it in principle. Indeed, some of those in the Conservative party support it in principle and some are against in principle. During the election campaign, they will have to make up their mind.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the five economic tests, particularly the question of whether the British economy is converging with that of the euro area, will he take into account the effect of enlargement on the economy of the euro area, and specifically the possible effect of enlargement on the value of the single currency?
    Mr. Brown: All matters that are relevant will be taken into account in making the assessment, and we shall consider the effects on investment, employment and financial services. We shall consider whether we have the flexibility and we shall consider whether there is sustainable convergence. Those are the economic tests for Britain.
    What the country will not support is a Conservative party that appears to want to rule out a single currency on grounds of dogma and is not prepared to examine what is in the national economic interest. I believe that, at the end of the day, people will want this decision to be taken on the basis of the national economic interest. By refusing even to support preparations by business, the Conservative party is not only the anti-European party in this country but the anti-business party.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: In advocating the single currency, will the Chancellor make sure to remind the British people that every time that we have been on fixed exchange rates, unemployment has increased astronomically? Will he also tell the British public that the choice of rate at which we would join the single currency is not left to this country to decide, because under article 109 of the treaty it has to be decided in conjunction with other countries? In other words, we cannot pick a rate to suit this country and the economy of this country.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that while he appears to be subjecting the single currency to the tests of employment and everything else, he has ruled out the single currency as a matter of dogma. His position is not to support it if the economic tests are met but to oppose it under all circumstances.
    The Conservative party will have to make up its mind. The shadow Chancellor told Welsh Conservatives on one occasion that his policy was to keep our options open on EMU. He also said that a single currency would mean giving up the government of the UK. The Conservative party must make up its mind in this campaign. Is it against a single currency in principle, and therefore for ever, or against it only for one Parliament?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason why he is in a position to tell the Commission and anybody else, including the International Monetary Fund, to get stuffed is that we now have the most successful economy in all my 31 years as
    256
    a Member of Parliament? When the election is fought, one thing will be cettain: we shall not need any lectures from people who were experts in building deficits. This Government have managed not only to wipe out the debt left by the Tories, but to create a successful economy, which will provide more money for the health service, more money for schools and more money for the welfare state. I look forward in the next four or five years to more redistribution of wealth from the rich, who are represented by the Tories, to the many, who are represented on the Labour Benches.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for his campaigning, particularly on behalf of pensioners.
    Any Conservative party claims to economic competence have been undermined not only by what it did in government, but, today, by a manifesto that is unaffordable and not properly costed. When it comes to the campaign, the deputy Director General of the CBI has said that the Tory party's more eurosceptic view is not one that most CBI members would feel comfortable with, and that it is not in our commercial interest to have a eurosceptic Government. He also said that the CBI was once considered the corporate arm of the Tory party, but that most businesses. would take their hat off to this Government for getting Britain's message across better. In other words, the Conservative party is not just the anti-euro party but, indeed, the anti-business party.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Given the Chancellor's objections to and embarrassment at receiving orders from Brussels to cut his overspending plans, why does he continue with the silly pretence that a Labour Government's decision to join the euro would be based on objective economic criteria? The country well knows that the issue is a fundamental constitutional one, not least whether Britain should retain the ability to manage its own economy.
    Mr. Brown: That really sums it up. I asked whether the Conservatives are against the single currency on principle or owing to the national economic interest. The hon. Gentleman has now proved that he is against the European Union altogether. It is hardly surprising that he had to apologise for calling for a renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. At this election, as I have seen from the Conservative party's manifesto issued this morning, it is against not only a single currency and helping business prepare for its introduction, but the treaty of Nice and single majority voting—and the hon. Gentleman is against the EU altogether. It is no wonder that businesses oppose the Conservative party.

    Community Sports Clubs
    Mr. Brian White: When he will introduce VAT relief for community sports clubs. [159885]
    11. Mr. Andrew Reed: What estimate he has made of the benefit to community and amateur sports clubs of his Budget proposals for tax relief. [159888]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government announced in the 2001 Budget their intention to consult on possible support through the tax system for community amateur sports clubs, which we recognise play a positive role in promoting health and cohesion in their communities. We intend over coming months to consult key organisations from the sports and voluntary sector, and to draw up a detailed proposal, which will be published for final consultation this year before the Government take it forward.
    Mr. White: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but will she take into account during the consultation the fact that many clubs have had to take up the slack as a result of the Tories flogging off school playing fields, and have had to spend more on providing sports facilities for young people?
    Dawn Primarolo: The answer is yes. That issue will be taken into account, because we recognise the valuable contribution that such organisations make.
    Mr. Reed: I am delighted that the Government have taken up my ten-minute Bill and I hope that, as soon as possible, I shall be able to see it proceed through its final stages in the next Parliament.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for sports clubs to benefit from the relief because they offer young people the opportunity to participate? The issue is not just about sport; it is about health, education and crime. The proposal is a prime example of joined-up thinking. It will ensure that people benefit from Government policy and shows the important role that sport plays.
    Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute Bill and on his ability to influence the Government and to represent his constituents so well in the House—long may that continue. He will know that the Treasury and Customs and Excise are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for precisely the reasons that he identified. Unfortunately, this is a complicated area of the tax system because of the various structures of sports clubs. However, we intend to take the measure forward and I hope that, when he sees the final proposals, he will be encouraged to continue to press the Government on such matters.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Paymaster General not understand that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will take a dim view if the Government extend relief for VAT to community sports clubs at the same time as they impose a new stealth tax of VAT on pensioners living in care homes? The Chancellor is so ashamed of that stealth tax that he would not reply to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked about it.
    Dawn Primarolo: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman seems to be declaring that the Conservative party will oppose the Government when we introduce any reliefs for community and amateur sports clubs. On his allegation about VAT changes with regard to pensioners, I point out that there are no VAT changes—and I hope
    258
    that he heard that. There will be no change in the proposals that are currently operational with regard to these services.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Although the Paymaster General's announcement is to be welcomed, does she agree that there is still a long way to go before the Government put back into sport and community organisations the large amount of tax that they take from them?
    Dawn Primarolo: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a fine record in supporting sports and community activities. The review that was carried out on the taxation of charities showed our commitment to supporting voluntary and charitable organisations. Clearly, the review of reliefs for amateur sports and community clubs adds to the contribution. He was quite wrong in his assertion.

    Employment (Budget Measures)
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the impact of his Budget measures on employment; and if he will make a statement. [159886]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Thanks to the tough choices and the platform of economic stability that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budgets have put in place, we have the lowest unemployment for a quarter of a century and 1 million more people in jobs.
    Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people in Scotland particularly welcome the successive Budgets introduced under our Government? Because of those Budgets, 31,500 people have found work through the new deal, 120,000 have benefited from the minimum wage and the working families tax credit is helping 108,000 families to make work pay. Does he agree that the Government's economic strategy goes hand in hand with our social policy agenda, which is tackling poverty? Does he also agree that, while jobs are good for individuals and the country, having a job is also the best way out of poverty?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is right at the heart of the Government's purpose to ally the economic conditions for growth and job generation with the opportunities and the help that people need to take advantage of those chances. We extend a hand up to those in the weakest position.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party poverty group and on the energetic and close support that he has given the new deal from its inception. Throughout the United Kingdom, the new deal has helped more than 290,000 young people off benefits and into jobs and more than 66,000 of the long-term unemployed have been helped to move from welfare to work. The promises that we made at the last general election have been kept, and we shall build on them in the future.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister accept that since the Budget thousands of people have lost their jobs as a consequence of foot and mouth hitting both agriculture-related services and, in particular, tourism?

    259
    In that context, will the Government consider—even at this late stage of a Parliament—extending an interest-free loan system to help those firms that are in danger of going out of business, and introducing a grant system to help to relaunch businesses that might otherwise find that difficult to do?
    Mr. Smith: We are very mindful of the acute difficulties that are being caused by the impact of foot and mouth disease, especially in rural communities. Help is being provided by the rural taskforce and other Government measures. such as the extra resources that we are giving to the small firms loan guarantee scheme and the extension of business relief. Moreover, we are deferring national insurance, income tax and value added tax payments, which gives tens of millions of pounds of help to hard-pressed businesses. As a result of consultations with the taskforce and others, the Government will continue closely to monitor the situation and consider the evidence to determine where further help is needed. The best thing that we can do is to get the footpaths and parks open—where it is proper and safe to do so—and the tourists back into our rural communities.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all Labour Members celebrate the fact that we have achieved the lowest unemployment figures for 25 years? May I also welcome the Chancellor's commitment to achieving full employment in every region? Will his concept of full employment include bringing back into the labour market disabled people, lone parents and people over 55?
    Mr. Smith: Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to successful welfare-to-work policies, not only in his constituency, but across the country, and on the distinguished contribution that he makes in chairing the Employment Sub-Committee. Our commitment to full employment is about extending opportunities to disabled people, lone parents and others who have been cut out in the past. That is why we have the disabled persons tax credit, the new deal for disabled people and the new deal for lone parents. Each measure helps thousands of people to move from dependency to greater independence as part of the provision of opportunities for all, for which the Labour party and the Government stand.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reply to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was pitifully inadequate? Does he not realise that there is great deprivation in rural areas as a consequence of foot and mouth disease? The measly measures that the Government have offered to try to meet the dire problem are absolutely inadequate. Will he address the issue, from his position of urban ignorance, and seek to do something about it?
    Mr. Smith: That was an unworthy remark from the hon. Gentleman. We have been energetic in introducing help where help is needed. I have received letters of appreciation for the help that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have given in deferring tax obligations. We have also extended extra help through the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and provided another £24 million just last week through the regional
    260
    development agencies. In addition, the rural taskforce will continue its work during the general election, in consultation with all interested and affected parties, to ensure that we get our rural communities back to normal and to their former levels of prosperity and economic activity, to which we should all be committed. Those communities can draw scant comfort or help from the Conservatives, who want to cut public expenditure even when their Back Benchers say that they want more of it.
    Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £6 billion pays for 30,000 nurses and 75,000 doctors, and provides minimum income guarantee payments for 2 million of our poorest pensioners? If he found a black hole in his budget, would he have the gall to explain to those people exactly what that meant? Would he be confident that he would get away with his life, given such wonky arithmetic?
    Mr. Smith: It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has left the Chamber already. Perhaps he has left to speak to financiers to learn how he will plug the black hole in his funding. My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party's prospectus threatens jobs. public services, living standards and investments. The electorate will not forgive Conservatives for putting forward such incompetent plans. Conservatives cannot show how they would be paid for, and they would put at risk economic stability and the social justice that the Government are providing.

    Debt Management Office
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the work of the Debt Management Office. [159889]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Debt Management Office supports the Government's policies of minimising debt financing costs over the long term, taking account of risk and managing the cash needs of the Exchequer in the most cost-effective way.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer. The management of the Debt Management Office is a vital part of managing the economy. Now that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has identified a massive gap of £5 billion a year by 2004. will the Labour party cut its disastrously unsustainable expenditure plans, will it disastrously increase taxation or will it unsustainably increase debt? To fill the gap, should the British people mind the gap and vote Conservative at the election?
    Mr. Smith: That was an extraordinary question for the hon. Gentleman to ask. In the year before the last general election, the Conservatives ran up borrowing of £28 billion. In the year before the impending election, we have a net repayment of £15 billion. The DMO is operating within a very different environment, in which the Government have sound public finances and sound money, as opposed to the spendthrift millstone of debt that the Conservative; put round our necks, and would do so again if they had the chance.

    261
    As for the performance of the DMO, the hon. Gentleman would have done well to read the Select Committee report that was published in May 2000, which stated:
    "We were pleased to note that several witnesses who have regular contacts with the DMO, particularly in relation to debt management, praised the agency's performance and transparency."
    There is a better financial situation that is being better managed with Labour.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are not the general public entitled to one more statistic? How many thousands of millions of pounds of Government debt that we inherited from the previous Tory Government have the Labour Government paid off since 1997?
    Mr. Smith: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his distinguished service and contribution to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which he will notice is applauded on both sides of the Chamber I thank him also for the principled, energetic, good-natured, friendly and supportive way in which he goes about his work, which was reflected in his question. The answer is that we are reducing debt from the 44 per cent. of gross domestic product under the Conservative Government to 31 per cent., and a sustainable 30 per cent. for the years ahead.
    Those are not merely statistics. The numbers reflect the money that is taken from working people's pockets. It was taken in the past to pay for the boom-and-bust instability of a Conservative Government, who ran up debts because they could not manage the economy effectively. In the coming weeks, our case will be built on the tough decisions that we have taken and the platform of stability
    262
    that we have put in place. We can invest and grow, and generate further jobs for the future. All that would be at risk with the Conservatives.

    Poor Families (Tax)
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the tax burden on poorer families. [159890]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): By October 2001, as a result of the personal tax and benefit measures introduced over the Parliament, families with children in the least well-off fifth of the population will, on average, be £1,700 a year better off in real terms.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: According to the Government's own figures, since they came to office the poorest fifth of households have had their tax burden increased by 12 per cent. Do the Government recognise that running a car is a necessity for many of even the poorest families, particularly in rural areas? They have introduced a regressive tax—there has been a massive increase in car taxation. Will the Minister join the Conservative party in cutting tax on petrol by 28p a gallon?
    Mr. Timms: No, less well-off families are much better off, as independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows. Of course, the data to which the hon. Gentleman referred include only about a quarter of a year's worth of working families tax credit data and do not include subsequent increases in income support child credits and other improvements. He needs to explain to his constituents the fact that our measures will have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty during the course of this Parliament. There have been huge improvements, particularly for the least well-off families.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I hope that you enjoy the Dissolution, as I suspect that there will not be a candidate fighting against you. I was wondering whether the Health Secretary has said that he will come and make a statement about the future of the Victoria hospital in Lichfield, which faces closure; or, failing that, whether the Home Secretary has decided to come along and make a statement about the fact that we have lost 240 or more patrol police officers in Staffordshire since 1997; or, failing that, whether there has been a statement from other Secretaries of State, including the Chancellor—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. The answer is no in every case.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether an opportunity can be found today or tomorrow for the Paymaster General to return to the House to correct a misleading impression that she may have given inadvertently during Treasury questions. When I asked about the Government's proposal to impose VAT on service charges in care homes and sheltered accommodation—a matter raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—she claimed that there was no such proposal. In fact, Customs and Excise propose to change the interpretation of Government rules, the effect of which will be to impose a new stealth tax on pensioners. At least the Chancellor was too ashamed to answer my right hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Speaker: Let me answer. What the hon. Gentleman should do is put his case in writing to the hon. Lady. That is the best way to do it.
Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am still waiting for answers to written questions that I tabled some time ago. I am waiting for two answers to questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I tabled on 20 April, and I am waiting for one answer to a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that I tabled on 6 April. We are now in the dying hours of this Parliament. What action can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that I get responses to those questions before Dissolution on Monday?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his problem on the record and I am sure that the Ministers will note what he has said.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of colleagues are in a similar position to my hon. Friend. Would you be kind enough, to contact Government Departments and ask for all ministerial replies to be given before Dissolution? That is something that you could do on behalf of Back Benchers, that would be appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions die when we come to Dissolution. However, I will
264
encourage Ministers to answer parliamentary questions tabled by Back Benchers. I will do that, and I thank the hon. Gentlemen for raising the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If possible, will you extend that help? As you may know, there have been many complaints from both sides of the House about the great slowness in dealing with parliamentary correspondence, some Departments being much worse than others. Is it within your remit, to direct from the Chair that you expect Members of Parliament to receive, before Parliament is dissolved or shortly thereafter, the backlog of replies that are due on behalf of many of our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a constituency, just as he does. Constituents write to me and I write to Ministers, and there are times when I am frustrated by the lack of replies and the time that it takes them to reply. I take on hoard what he says, and I hope that Ministers take note.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your replies to the points of order have been extremely helpful. May I take the matter one stage further? You rightly pointed out that Departments can no longer reply to questions once the House has dissolved, but that does not mean that Departments of State cannot deal with questions by way of correspondence to let hon. Members have a reply, albeit in a different way. Could you ensure that Departments of State reply by letter to questions that cannot be dealt with before the Dissolution?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that, but correspondence can be answered after Dissolution. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman writing and saying, "Please reply to my question in writing. I should be obliged if the Minister would do that." However, there is nothing that I can do about that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not somewhat strange that Conservative Members want a different situation from that which pertained in 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997? Your answers have been extremely helpful, but we did not get such co-operation from Ministers at the time of those elections.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House a long time. Many of the Ministers during the period to which he refers were very good at replying to correspondence. I appreciated the replies that some of those Ministers gave to a Back Bencher like myself in those days.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the House becomes noisy during exchanges at Question Time, many of us rely on the amplification equipment to hear what is said. I wonder whether, in the period between now and the election, the amplification equipment on the Government side could be checked. During questions to the Chancellor, I distinctly heard requests being made for him to deal with questions

265
about whether taxes would rise to sustain his spending plans. However, the Chancellor did not seem to hear that question and no reply was given
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we will hear the reply after the election.
Mr. Stephen Day: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Health notified you that he intends to come to the House in the last few hours of this Parliament to make a statement about heart transplant services in south Manchester? The matter has been outstanding for some time, and people are worried because a well-respected unit in south Manchester could be closed. The delay is wrong An election is upon us and the people of south Manchester ought to know the Government's intentions. Have you had such a request, sir?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Foot and mouth has not gone away. This is the first week since the crisis began when the Minister of Agriculture has not come to the Chamber. There are strong reports that cases are being underestimated. We all have difficult constituency problems with licensing and movement of stock. First, have you received any notice that there has been a change of mind and that the Minister intends, to make a statement to the House? Secondly, a lobby yesterday reported that the tourism industry had lost £12 billion so far. Is there any sign that the Minister for the Environment has changed his mind and proposes to make a statement about the taskforce? We have had numerous announcements, but constituents are writing and asking for detail. Finally, has the Prime Minister notified you that as the catastrophe has cost the British nation £20 billion, he intends to come to the House to announce the establishment of a full, independent inquiry under the impartial chairmanship of a judge?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no communication from Ministers.
Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your helpful replies to earlier points of order. Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), should I take it that you think that the Minister should reply if my hon. Friend accepts your very good advice? Pensioners need to know whether VAT is to be levied on their warden services, and it would be good to clear that up soon.
Mr. Speaker: That matter is up to the Minister.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not really think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has a point of order.
Mr. Bercow: Oh, I have.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall call the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) first.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am still encountering serious problems in relation to foot and mouth, which are brought to my attention by constituents almost daily. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will maintain all lines of communication with election candidates, so that they may put to the Ministry any serious problems that they find and be assured that prompt action will be taken? For example, will the hotline be maintained for candidates' use?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter, but it is up to the Minister to decide whether he contacts candidates. We must be careful about that. I understand his difficulty and the very serious problems in rural areas, and I am sure that the Minister will take note of them.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the biggest concerns is that many cattle will be turned out to pasture during the next couple of weeks. There is grave anxiety in my constituency, which is very rural and situated in the dairy fanning area of this country, that the foot and mouth epidemic from which we have so grievously suffered might be caused to upsurge by the turning out of cattle. If that happens, candidates of all parties will need the answers that they seek from MAFF and must be able to give authoritative, reliable and, above all, responsible information to all those who have a deep anxiety about the matter and who need answers. Can you do anything to assist?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must take a point of order from the other side of the House.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The shadow Chancellor was specifically asked during Treasury questions about the £6 billion hole in his pension package. He showed a great discourtesy to the House by leaving the Chamber halfway through questions, presumably to talk to the financiers about how to overcome the problem. Do you have power to call him back to the House to apologise for his discourtesy and to allow us to get answers from him on that very important point before the general election?
Mr. Speaker: That question should not have been put to the Chancellor, as he has no responsibilities on matters that concern the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the Exchequer or finance.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Speaker: The best has been saved until last.
Mr. Bercow: I never doubted that, Mr. Speaker, as your impartiality is, of course, absolutely legendary. I could not understand why my intentions could conceivably be in doubt. May I ask you, on what I think is a genuine point of order, to confirm that it is incumbent

267
upon all hon. Members, including Ministers, to address the House? In that context, is not it somewhat disturbing that the Chancellor, while not answering questions, yet again did not address the House, but kept looking at the Labour Benches? May I put it to you that his failure to look us in the eye runs the very worrying risk of ensuring that he will be regarded as in some way shifty, disingenuous or even untrustworthy?
Mr. Speaker: I saw nothing out of order, but I must, of course, concentrate on the hon. Gentleman all the time, because he keeps talking. That sometimes distracts me, but when I was looking at the Chancellor and other Ministers, I saw nothing out of order.

Health and Social Care (Programme)(No. 3)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10th January and 14th February:

Health and Social Care (Programme)(No. 3)

  Lords Amendments
  1. (1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  (2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order—
  Nos. 6 to 17, 60 to 66, 1 to 5, 18 to 59 and 67 to 87.

  Subsequent stages
  2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Allen.]

Orders of the Day
  Health and Social Care Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Health and Social Care Bill

    Before Clause 12
    Lords amendment: No. 6
    Insert the following new Clause—
    Reform of Community Health Councils

    (1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the reform of Community Health Councils established for districts in England under section 20 of the 1977 Act

    (2) The regulations shall provide for—

    (a) renaming Community Health Councils as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils");

    (b) the information which local National Health Service bodies must provide to Councils;

    (c) the funding of Councils and the provision of premises and other facilities by the Secretary or State;

    (d) the membership of Councils.

    (3) The functions of a Council are—

    (a) to establish sub-committees for each National Health Service trust and Primary Care Trust in the district of the Council, to be known as Patient' Forums (referred to in this section as "Forums");

    (b) to facilitate the co-ordination by Forums of their activities;

    (c) to make reports and submit recommendations to Health Authorities, local authorities and their committees, National Health Service trusts, Primary Care Trusts, the national patients' body for England and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;

    (d) to carry out such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services);

    (e) to appoint, for each Forum within its district, one member as a non-executive director to the board of the trust to which the Forum relates;

    (f) to appoint a representative, having such functions as may be prescribed. to attend meetings of each relevant Health Authority;

    (g) to arrange for functions of Forums to be performed under joint arrangements between Councils, where such arrangements are appropriate to meet the needs of their communities;

    (h) to receive and respond to disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c.23) where such disclosures reveal matters of concern for patients in the health service or for the wider community;

    (i) to refer issues of concern to patients to Health Authorities, local authorities and such national quality assurance bodies as the regulations may prescribe and to the Secretary of State;

    (j) such other functions as the regulations may prescribe.

    (4) The functions of a Forum are to—

    (a) monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust to which it relates;

    (b) obtain the views of patients carers and the wider community about those services and report on those views to the Council and to the trust;

    (c) having regard to the views obtained in accordance with paragraph (b), provide advice and make reports and recommendations about matters relating to those services to the Council. the relevant Health Authority, and the trust;

    (d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services;

    (e) carry out such functions in relation to primary care services as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State:

    270

    (f) in prescribed circumstances, to perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers;

    (g) carry out such other functions as may be prescribed.

    (5) Regulations shall provide for the membership of a Forum. which shall comprise—

    (a) as to at least a quarter of its membership, members or representatives of voluntary organisations whose members or client groups have an interest in the health service;

    (b) as to at least a quarter of its membership, patients;

    (c) as to at least a quarter of its membership, carers;

    (d) such other persons as may be prescribed.

    (6) References in subsection (4) to "services" are references to—

    (a) services provided as part of the health service (within the meaning of the 1977 Act) in England,

    (b) services provided in England in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority, and

    (c) services provided elsewhere (and not part of the health service in England) in pursuance of section 31 arrangements with a local authority in England.

    (7) In this section—

    (a) "relevant Health Authority" in subsection (4)(c) in relation to a Forum for a Primary Care Trust, means the Health Authority whose area is, or includes, the area for which the trust is established;

    (b) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

    (c) "section 31 arrangements" means arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities);

    (d) "carer", in relation to a patient, means a person who provides care for the patient, but who is not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment;

    (e) "the health service" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act;

    (f) "patient" includes (as well as a patient within the meaning of that Act) a person who receives services provided in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority."

    12.44 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and consequential amendments Nos. 1 to 7 thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15 and Government motions to disagree thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 68; Lords amendments Nos. 82 and 83 and Government motions to disagree thereto.
    Mr. Denham: In setting the scene for the amendments, it is important to stress that this is a major Bill. It puts in place many of the measures and powers that are needed to modernise the NHS and to implement the NHS plan, which was launched last July with widespread support from the NHS, its staff, professional organisations and patients groups. The plan underpins the unprecedented investment in the NHS that this Government are making, but which the Conservative party would put under threat.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to speak. I gather that the Bill is the flagship Bill of the Government in their dying

    271
    days. Is there any particular reason why the Secretary of State is not here to present the Bill and speak to the amendments?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Lady knows that I have handled the great bulk of the stages of the Bill, and I am doing so today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking part in a visit which in principle has been planned for many months.
    For the first time in the history of the NHS. nursing care for the elderly will become free in nursing homes from October this year. Just in the past few days, the Conservative party has again made clear its preference for private insurance as the answer to long-term care. The Bill will protect patients and be fairer to GPs by improving the regulation of GPs and other primary care professionals. It will extend prescribing rights. It will strengthen joint working between the NHS and social services by allowing care trusts to be established. It will protect the essential work of cancer registries and other vital parts of the NHS by protecting the information flows that it needs. [Interruption.] As we approach the closing stages of the Bill none of those must be put in jeopardy. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister knows that we are talking not about the general terms of the Bill, but about Lords amendments to it. He should speak to them.
    Mr. Denham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to point out that because the Bill is so important we must not put its provisions in jeopardy at this stage in its progress through Parliament. The Lords amendments deal with two substantive issues: the reform of patient representation and patient information. This group of amendments deals with patient representation.
    In all the challenges we face in modernising the NHS, the need to make the NHS patient-centred is one of the most fundamental. In the past 25 years too little progress has been made in that area. No matter how good each individual episode of clinical care is, too often patients feel that they have to make their way round the system instead of the system being built around their needs. They have to wait for an appointment that is inconvenient instead of being able to book one. They return time and again for different tests instead of having all the tests done on one day. Their passage from one part of the system to another, perhaps from the health service to social care, is not smooth and seamless as it should be. Too often simple problems, complaints and misunderstandings are not dealt with quickly, some then becoming major problems.
    We are already taking action to tackle those issues, but we know and patients know that change will be faster, more effective and more lasting if patients and carers have a voice at the heart of every part of the NHS.
    In the NHS plan we set out proposals for a radical change to the system of patient representation. In each trust and primary care trust a patient advocacy and liaison service will be able to tackle emerging problems there and then. A practical answer—
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the
    272
    Minister to tell us whether he is agreeing or disagreeing with the Lords amendment and, indeed, what he is talking about? We have one hour only.
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister is in order at the moment.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Only just.
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister is drawing a fine line.
    Mr. Denham: I have sought to set the context. The Lords amendments set out proposals and amended proposals for a system of patient representation and empowerment. I hope that it will be possible to set out the Government's intentions in this Bill in trying to reform the system of patient representation, how the Lords amendments would affect that and the reason for the position that we take on the Lords amendments. I am very much in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that that approach will be acceptable.
    Mr. Speaker: In my experience amendments tend to be narrow and it is best to keep to the amendment before the House.
    Mr. Denham: We set out radical reforms to the system of patient representation in the NHS plan. As the Bill progressed, the system was incorporated in many amendments. The Bill provided for patients forums, and we said that we wished to co-ordinate their work locally. We established a group to consider the representation of patients through a national patients body. It recommended that the body should be statutory, and such a provision was included in thy; Bill in the House of Lords. Government amendments and those tabled by others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), led to a radical and powerful Bill for patient representation. However, the amendments that were made in another place wreck the Government's approach, to which the House of Commons had made amendments.
    The key amendment is technically and legally unworkable, and it would not provide the structural change based on independent patients forums or the important shift towards the direct representation of patients and carers that lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. The part of the Bill that we are considering is controversial, and I believe that, before the Lords amendments, the measure was a significant improvement on the original. It reflected much of the discussion that took place inside and outside Parliament. Many people, including many in community health councils, will be disappointed that the provisions will be withdrawn.
    At this stage of a Parliament, progress on Bills depends on the rapid agreement of both Houses. Several Bills have already fallen because such agreement was unattainable. The most disgraceful example is the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which has fallen because of Conservative party—
    Mr. Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it pertinent for the Minister to mention a different Bill when we have only one hour to debate the measure?
    Mr. Speaker: Regardless of the time available, all hon. Members, including Ministers, must keep to the amendment that we are considering. It is a narrow amendment.
    Mr. Denham: I hoped to draw attention to the fact that other Bills had suffered the same fate as the part of the

    273
    measure that we are considering. We made significant efforts to find an agreed way forward in the light of the Lords amendments. However, given the time constraints imposed by an impending general election, it is clear that the Bill would be jeopardised unless we removed the clauses that related to patient representation.
    We are determined to empower patients more. However, we are also determined to lift the burden of nursing costs from elderly people and their families as soon as possible; indeed, from October. We shall give up the clauses because we are not prepared to put at risk free nursing care for the elderly. We are determined to fulfil our commitment to pensioners.
    The amendments that we have tabled, alongside the Lords amendments, will remove the necessary clauses from the Bill. We agree with Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which remove the clauses on patients forums and patients councils. We disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 4 to remove any link between independent advocacy and patients councils. Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17, with which we agree, ensure that CHCs will continue. We must therefore disagree with Lords amendment No.15, and thus remove the national patients body. We regret its loss and believe that the proposed wider role and membership, and the opportunity to include voluntary organisations that represent patients, would be a considerable step forward. However, we cannot have two national statutory bodies that both seek to represent patients and the public. We must therefore withdraw the proposals for the new body.
    We must reconsider how to pick up the proposals from the feasibility study, that we established on national patient representation. It was carried out for the Department by a consortium of leading patients' organisations. We do not wish to lose sight of the vision that it set out in its report.
    We oppose Lords amendment No.6, which seeks to transform CHCs into patients councils and reduce patients forums to mere sub-committees of CHCs. As I said earlier, that does not offer the basis of a realistic or workable way forward. The clause is technically deficient. If it were left on the statute book, it would lead to future arrangements for patient representation being decided in the courts rather than in the House. Consequential to that position and the removal of patients forums and councils are our amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 82 and 83, which remove clauses 14, 15 and 16, and further technical changes. The Government also disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which would have amended the clauses relating to patients councils and forums.
    It might be helpful if I summarise the effect of the Government's proposals on the relevant legislation and policy. Although the effect of the amendments would be to leave the legislation governing community health councils as it stands, the Bill will still introduce significant changes. Overview and scrutiny committees of democratically elected councils will scrutinise the NHS, a change that has been supported in both Houses and was unaffected and unchallenged by the Lords amendments. The change has broad support and we will want to ensure that it is implemented. Among other things, overview and scrutiny committees will be given the role of referring local service change proposals to the Secretary of State
    274
    and the independent reconfiguration committee when the committee does not think the proposals are in the interests of the local population.
    The Secretary of State will still have the responsibility introduced in this place to ensure the provision of an independent patient advocacy service, which also will be widely welcomed. The first patient advocacy and liaison services are now being established in trusts across the country, often involving former CHC staff.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently set out our plans to have far fewer, but more strategic, health authorities. The move to 30 strategic health authorities has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister be asked to clarify to which Lords amendments those specific points relate?
    Mr. Speaker: We must allow the Minister to express himself as he wishes to express himself.
    Mr. Denham: It might be useful to the House and for the benefit of Conservative Members—I have no intention of talking out this debate—if I set out as clearly as possible the legal and policy position that would pertain if the House were to follow the advice that I am giving on the Lords amendments that we wish to accept, the Lords amendments with which we disagree, and the Government's own amendments. I am briefly setting out that scenario.
    I have made it clear—perhaps I need to repeat the points—that, although the legal position governing CHCs would remain as it is, there would be consequential changes to the Bill. Overview and scrutiny committees would take on the role that we have set out for them, and the Secretary of State will have a responsibility to provide independent patient advocacy services.
    The move to 30 strategic health authorities is one of the matters that will govern change in the future. The change has been widely welcomed as part of our commitment to devolving power and resources to the front line. It would be ludicrous to assume that patient representation can be championed effectively by ever-more remote committees. What is needed is patient representation within every NHS organisation. We shall still seek to establish patients forums, which are an essential tool if patients are to challenge and change each part of the NHS. Although we would need further legislation to give them the statutory independence that we would like them to have, non-statutory forums can be established in the interim.
    Change is therefore inevitable. We will have to return to those matters after the election and further legislation may be necessary. However, as we have said from the beginning, any change must be as seamless as is practical and make the best and most appropriate use of the skills and expertise that are already within the system.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos.15 and 66. If the House agrees to either of those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
    Dr. Liam Fox: I shall be relatively brief.

    275
    None of us expected quite such a rapid victory for common sense as we have been seeing in the Chamber today. I share my hon. Friends' disappointment that the Secretary of State could not attend this debate and eat humble pie himself. It seems that he finds that diet unpalatable, and that the Prime Minister's three-week humility does not apply to all his Cabinet Ministers.
    The Minister was scrambling round for a description of the Government's position as a consequence of their position on the Lords amendments, but I shall try to help him. Climbdown, U-turn and humiliation are all reasonable descriptions of his position today.
    1 pm
    As for the Minister's unmitigated drivel about the need to protect free nursing care, which is Conservative party policy, it really was a very poor excuse indeed. However, I am sure that he will have the gratitude of at least some of his Back Benchers for abandoning one of the most ridiculous and disastrous policies to emerge from the Department of Health in the past four years. We shall not divide the House, as we agree with the position that the Minister has taken on the Lords amendments. The effect of what the Government are saying today will be simply to return us to the status quo, which is where we wanted to be all along.
    There would have been no need to have ridiculous and lengthy debates on the subject only to arrive back where we started, if only Ministers had been willing to listen to representations that were made the length and breadth of the country, by those of all party political persuasions and none, to the effect that this was a poor decision that was not in the interest of patients and only in the interests of those who wanted a lapdog rather than a watchdog for patients.
    The Lords amendments will return us to the position that community health councils are currently in, acting as a one-stop shop for patients. The community health councils that were created by a Conservative Government in 1973 offer free labour to the NHS worth £8 million a year. Each year, community health councils assist about 30,000 people, yet they were kept in the dark about the Government's plans.
    When Ministers were asked about consultation they did not accept that ACHCEW—the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales—or the CHCs themselves had any legitimate expectation of consultation on the proposal that CHCs should be abolished through primary legislation to be introduced in Parliament in due course. That arrogance was one of the main reasons why their Lordships were unwilling to accept the Government's plans. In addition, apparently the Government had no idea of what would happen to CHC staff or the records that were kept by CHC. All that made a poor situation overwhelmingly unsatisfactory. The overwhelming view on both sides of the House, which is held by everyone except those on the Government Front Bench, is that there should now be a reform rather than abolition.
    Government Back Benchers who might have taken some short-term comfort from the Minister's words may not be so happy when they read the Department of Health press release that says that, should the Government be
    276
    re-elected, they propose to continue with the abolition of community health councils. It will therefore be increasingly clear up and down the country that those who have been helped by community health councils, those who assist community health councils and those who work for community health councils will know that a vote for the Conservatives will keep the community health councils and a vote for Labour will abolish them.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: I very much welcome the fact that the Government are going back to the drawing board on this issue. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has heard my previous comments on the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill
    "contains many positive measures, but also some that need to be given further thought … Of particular concern are the proposals in clauses 7 to 14, regarding scrutiny and complaints … I feel that there has not been adequate public consultation and discussion … I get the distinct impression that the proposals regarding CHCs and scrutiny were something of an afterthought."—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol.360,c.1104-105.]
    As the Minister is well aware, my main concerns related to the fragmentation of the system that was being proposed to replace CHCs—the lack of independence and the lack of clear proposals for independent patient advocacy. I welcome the fact that the amendments on advocacy reflecting the concerns of the Select Committee on Health have been retained. We all accept that that is a major step forward.
    On Report, I moved the new clauses in respect of patients councils in order to create an umbrella body that would draw together the various forums, reflecting the role that CHCs have undertaken over many years and the advocacy service to which the Government have agreed. I said:
    "I make no bones about the fact that I am proposing a framework that needs to be examined in more detail."
    I recognised that a lot more work needed to be done and said:
    "We must consider continuity between any change and the new system. I genuinely hope. that some of those who have served so well on CHCs will make a major contribution within the new system."—[Official Report, 14 February 2001;Vol.363,c.395–96.]
    That was what I felt needed to be done in the House of Lords. I am conscious that the deliberations in the other place were constructive, because the official Opposition changed their position between the Commons and the Lords. The Conservatives in the Lords actually backed the idea of patient councils as a reform that could improve the position of patients. I recognise that there were differences over du detail, including the issue of the relationship between patients councils and forums.
    The Lords amendment does not reflect the importance of the patients forums, which will be front-line bodies that will play an important role. I understand the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Minister on that point and I also understand the difficulties involved in the continuity question. I welcome the Government's willingness to make further proposals in that area.
    The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that we were back to the status quo, but he is wrong. He nodded a moment ago when I mentioned independent advocacy, which is a major step forward, and I am sure that he—and the Liberal Democrats, given their previous position—will support that reform.
    Dr. Fox: If I may clarify the position, I meant that we are back to the status quo for the CHCs, and we welcome

    277
    the additional proposals. Will the hon. Gentleman return the favour by telling us whether he will campaign in the general election on his party's ticket to abolish CHCs?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I made my position clear on Second Reading, when I said that the CHCs' functions need to be radically reformed, and the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. I was a member of my local CHC for many years, and its members know that I believe that we need to modernise that scrutiny function and reflect the marked change in the whole direction of the NHS that has taken place, rightly, under this Government
    I would welcome the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Minister on whether the advocacy arrangements proposed in the Bill will ensure, as the Health Committee suggested, that the advocacy function can be placed temporarily with CHCs, so that patients have a clear, independent voice. I would also welcome his comments on where the advocacy function will be placed, as the Bill stands, and on the current position of CHC members, who are hard-working volunteers and need some assurances about their future role.
    I am also concerned about the position of the staff of CHCs and of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. Serious questions have been raised about their their job security and future role. Those people have done a good job in many respects and I would be grateful for my right lion. Friend's comments. I also wish to praise the work of Donna Covey at ACHCEW; she has attempted to work closely with the Government and other parties, in difficult circumstances, to reach some solution that will reflect the concerns of those who want a modernised system.
    Patients also need some assurances about the interim period. Will they still have access to CHCs carrying out the functions that they now perform? Can my right hon. Friend confirm my hope that the advocacy function will be available, once the Bill takes effect, within CHCs to assist patients in a way that many of them are not now assisted?
    Mr. Nick HarveyThe Government's proposals started out as a curate's egg and ended up as a dog's breakfast. We have taken the view from the beginning that what the Government proposed had three essential flaws. The first was a lack of independence in the arrangements. The second was a lack of cohesion—we were concerned that the system would be so fragmented—and the third was that no national body was proposed that would provide a voice for patients at national level.
    During the progress of the Bill, some of those issues have been addressed in part. For example, the patients forums were taken away from the trusts, which originally were to fund and establish them. The provisions for independent advocacy also increased the independence of the new arrangements. The Government conceded in the other place that there should be a national body to represent patients at national level.

    Just as the Bill was leaving this House, an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) proposed the creation of patients councils. That would have gone some way towards addressing the point about cohesion. We believe that patients councils could have become very worthwhile bodies, especially given the
    278
    bigger health authority footprint that is now being talked about, and that they should have been responsible for the independent advocacy service.
    The House of Lords, when it considered the amendment, wanted to put patients councils on a firmer footing. Their Lordships wanted the councils to be clearly marked out as successor bodies to the community health councils. It is regrettable that the Government did not feel able to accept that, but they seem to have concluded that it would be better to go back to a blank sheet; and we do not intend to obstruct them in that.
    We will have to return to this matter, both during the election campaign and after it. If we are going to start from a blank sheet of paper, I hope very much that any decision made by the House about future arrangements for patient representation will provide for a set-up that is strong, independent, coherent, properly funded and represented by a national body.
    The Government will feel some embarrassment that they have had to withdraw their proposal at this stage of the Bill's progress. The proposal was always flawed, but I have every hope that, after the election, we will arrive at an arrangement that is in the best interests of patients.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: There are times when one's faith in the democratic process is confirmed, even in this Parliament under this Government. I raised the matter of the widespread opposition in the country to the Government's peremptory proposal to abolish CHCs at one Prime Minister's Question Time last year. I received a dusty answer and was told that consultation was being held and that a report on that consultation would be made to the House. Only three days later, the Prime Minister sent me a grovelling letter signed. as seems to be his habit, "Yours ever. Tony". In it, he admitted that a decision had been made and that the Government were not going to consult on the abolition of CHCs after all.
    The abolition proposal was set out in the small print of the middle chapters of last summer's NHS plan. I am delighted that the Government's craven climbdown at this late hour means that the excellent Chester and Ellesmere Port and Cheshire Central CHCs will be able to continue their good work, under their respective chief officers Mr. Geoff Ryall-Harvey and Mrs. Jean French.
    Those chief officers have not been assisted by the Government's brutal and mindless approach to the welfare of CHC staff and volunteers. I talked to Mr. Ryall-Harvey this morning. I thought that today's debate might turn out as it has, but of course was not able to say as much. The irony is that Mr. Ryall-Harvey told me that he had just returned from an out-placement session that was held because it was believed that the Government were confident that they would succeed in getting the abolition proposal through the House.
    I am glad to say that the Government have failed, and that opposition to the proposal has emerged among hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Back-Bench Members, and in the other place. We have been deeply upset on behalf of patients, staff and NHS users at what amounted to an appalling attack on the independence of patients and on their confidence that they can discuss the difficult issues that arise when things go wrong. That is when people with grievous and worrying problems are at

    279
    their most vulnerable and need people of independence and authority who can inspire confidence that solutions can be found.
    These issues were highlighted during an excellent debate in Westminster Hall. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, and his team for having championed the retention of CHCs so successfully. It is common ground across the House and among CHCs that they need updating and reform. However, all the good work that they have done does not need to be undermined by the Government's wish to abolish them, which has done untold damage. The wind-down, in anticipation of abolition, has caused grievous morale problems.
    1.15 pm
    It must be made clear that, despite this shoddy process, the Government's shabby conduct and a shameful policy, this is only a temporary reprieve. If a Labour Government are returned, they will again campaign for the abolition of CHCs, and it will cause their Back Benchers no end of difficulty. We, however, will be saying. in any campaign and challenge that is put to Conservative party candidates in the forthcoming election, that we will retain CHCs, reform them and commit ourselves to their independence.
    I am proud to have played a small part in the campaign to retain CHCs, and I am glad that the Government have given way at last on this terrible policy.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for getting the Prime Minister, in effect, to mis-speak. In the follow-up letter, it was made clear that there had been no consultation before the Government's decision to abolish community health councils as legal entities.
    I think that the reaction of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which joined in the campaign strongly after a slow start, was based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury did and also on the actions of the Worthing district community health council. It wrote to the association asking what action it would take. Then we discovered that what the Government assumed to be a done deal across the country was not one, and that community health councils had been objecting strongly. [Interruption.] Some Government Back Benchers must have pager messages saying "smile" at this point, but it is no laughing matter. It matters a great deal to people with hospital appointment problems, those who have concerns or who want to draw Ministers into the reconfiguration of hospital services. If the Government said that they had a fragmented responsibility to the CHCs to bring general practitioner services into their field, that would make sense.
    I have in my hand a letter from one of my constituents, who is 71. His family doctor referred him to a specialist clinic. The letter he got back said:
    "You have been referred to … the Pain Management Unit at St. Thomas's Hospital. We are writing to confirm that you are now on our waiting list, and we hope to be able to offer you an appointment in 15 months' time."
    280
    [Interruption.] The Government Whip may ask what this has to do with community health councils. CHCs would, rightly, ask how on earth that person was supposed to bear his pain for 15 months while the hospital decides whether it can offer him an appointment. That does not necessarily mean treatment. The Minister looks upset about this. He jolly well should be; so is my constituent.
    People are doing more and more at Worthing hospital, but it should be plain. even to a Health Minister, that more is being left undone than was the case four years ago. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is not so, in which case I refer him to his own answers, which show the proportion of people waiting for in-patient treatment for more than a year, how that figure compares with four years ago, and how it compares with the figure for the health authority covering the Prime Minister's constituency.
    It would be propel for the Worthing district community health council to take up the question of a 47-week delay in seeing a consultant in Worthing hospital. If the Government want to extend CHCs' powers to include the family practitioner service, the overload there is probably just as great. Regrettably, family doctors in Worthing, south of the railway line—which has probably the greatest concentration of those over 85 in the country—have closed their lists to new patients and will now take only those referred through the health authority. For that to happen, after four years of the Government's stewardship, is something that CHCs should take up.
    Ministers know that holding the election 12 months early has helped to save community health councils. They should drop the Labour party desire to abolish community health councils and seek all-party agreement to extend the CHC role to cover family doctor services. CHCs can thus help health workers—doctors, nurses and others; they are willing to take up complaints and, most of all, they ensure that there is a public, independent, knowledgeable and continuous voice to make plain that what is happening at present is unacceptable.
    Ministers seem to fear people saying that what is happening is unacceptable, but waiting 15 months or 47 weeks to see a consultant and the closing of GP lists are certainly not acceptable to me. I doubt that they are acceptable to Labour Members either. CHCs have a proper role to play in ensuring that the situation changes and changes fast. Do not abolish CHCs.
    Mr. John Gunnell: I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). When we considered this matter in the Health Committee, we were convinced of the need for a less haphazard advocacy system that was genuinely independent. Advocates must be independent of the hospital trusts that employ them and which they investigate. We certainly need the advocacy system to be more widespread. The system must be strengthened by making it coherent and common to all trusts. It must be genuinely independent. I am glad that the Government have listened and that more acceptable proposals have been made.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the points that I made in my speech. As this may be my hon. Friend's last contribution in the House, I feel it appropriate to pay tribute to him for his work on

    281
    the Health Committee, and in representing his constituents in Morley and Rothwell and in local government over many years. He is still widely respected for his work as a member of West Yorkshire county council. I am sure that we all wish him well in his retirement.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I join in the tribute to the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) for his work on the Health Committee. As he will remember, he and I have jousted in Committees on several occasions. I, too, wish him well in his retirement.
    I am extremely pleased that there has been a reprieve for the East Herts and North Herts community health councils, both of which have a valuable function in my constituency. They check on cleanliness in hospitals, investigate food quality and, at their statutory meetings with the health authority, have been instrumental in teasing out some of our financial problems.
    My concerns about the proposals related to independence and continuity. The CHC representatives who carried out inspections of Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City and highlighted problems with cleaning contracts have a continuity of experience with that hospital. The representatives of the North Herts CHC who inspected Lister hospital, looking into diet and the quality of food preparation, also have that continuity of experience. They are independent; they say what they see.
    It may not be convenient for Governments to have such independent people telling them what is right or wrong with local health services. However, as a Member of Parliament, it is helpful to me to know that there is a truly independent sounding board, which has continuity. The statutory meeting of the East Herts CHC certainly brought out—through questioning and contributions from the health authority—some of the financial difficulties that had occurred during the past few months in East and North Hertfordshire. That process was extremely helpful.
    Mr. Denham: Can the hon. Gentleman identify a single way in which the patients forums or the patients councils, as we proposed them, would be less statutorily independent than CHCs?
    Mr. Heald: One of the greatest achievements of the community health councils has been casualty watch. It is to have a national body—
    Mr. Denham rose—
    Mr. Heald: Let me finish the point. It is to have a national body. which will be able to co-ordinate these matters, and which will be independent and able to communicate fearlessly the picture for the country as a whole. Governments do not like that, but the public at large and Members of Parliament certainly appreciate it.
    Mr. Denham: Why would the national body as set out in the Bill have been in any way less, able to do casualty watch than the CHCs are at the moment? We have made it clear that it could do so equally well.
    Mr. Heald: We want something that is genuinely independent, and we want it—[Laughter.] The Minister
    282
    laughs, but independence is important. We are used to a Government who constantly spin figures and change the basis of figures—a Government who are all about spin rather than reality. If it is independent—
    Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the patients councils and patients forums as proposed in the Bill would be established by secondary legislation—regulations introduced by the Secretary of State—and would not be enshrined in primary legislation, as CHCs are?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right about that. All too often, we are asked to accept assurances. We know what the community health councils and the national body do at the moment. We are expected to give the Government carte blanche because they are nice people giving us assurances, but that is unacceptable. We want it in the law.
    I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make this short contribution to the debate.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: I am very disappointed with the situation that we now face. People have put a great deal of work into trying to find answers to a multitude of questions, but those questions remain on the table and all the work will have to start again.
    A lot of work has been put in over the past 10 months to make sense of a set of proposals that, to start with, were fragmented and posed more questions than they answered. When the Bill left the House on Third Reading, it contained a much better set of proposals. The new structure for patient representation was not nearly as fragmented as it was when it was first suggested, thanks to the Government's acceptance of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and thanks to a great deal of work that had been done outside this place, by civil servants and others, to which the Government paid attention. With patients councils forming the overview and the administrative cohesion that was missing from the initial set of proposals, we had a structure that would have worked and would have made sense locally.
    The statutory, independent patients forums would be very important for every part of the local health service. They would not perpetuate the traditional emphasis on hospitals—the acute sector—but would give equal importance to the primary care sector, and to community health services. Patients councils would have been well able to play the important role of fitting that structure together. They would also provide a means of disseminating and receiving information, locally, regionally and nationally, and a means of informing local authority scrutiny committees.
    We have not returned to where we started, but the situation is unsatisfactory and unresolved, and people will still have in mind questions that they will pose in the weeks and months ahead, to which the Government will need to return in future.
    Will the Minister give one assurance? Will he acknowledge that no system that deals with patient representation and patient empowerment will work unless it has the good will of all the people who are already involved in those areas? Most of them serve on CHCs and most are volunteers, but many work for other voluntary

    283
    organisations, as my right hon. Friend will know. Their good will and work needs to be acknowledged. The Government could have begun the process in a better way with regard to those people. The process began 10 months ago and there has been constructive consultation since, but there will certainly have to be a great deal more of it to deal with these matters when the Government return to power.
    I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the views of those in the voluntary sector—voluntary members of CHCs as well as staff—will be taken on board, so that such people will be fully involved in returning to the drawing board to consider the new structure. We need the involvement of those people to make any new structure work.
    1.30 pm
    Mr. Hammond: We really should not be having this debate. If the Government had listened to what people had to say and genuinely consulted at the outset, as they pretended they had, they would have realised that the Bill's proposals were unacceptable. They are unacceptable to the Conservative Opposition, to all other parties in the House and, indeed, to the great majority of Labour Back Benchers. They are unacceptable to outside bodies representing patients and to most commentators on the subject. It is only the Government's arrogance that has resulted in their having to make such a humiliating climbdown at the 11th hour.
    The Minister is wrong to suggest—indeed, the Labour party was wrong to suggest in last night's press release—that the climbdown is somehow in order to save the principle of free nursing care. I believe that all parties in the House have expressed their support for the introduction of free nursing care.
    Clause 56 removes from local authorities the statutory duty to provide or procure free nursing care, and the power to do so. There is no reason why, if clause 56 had fallen and the Bill had not become law, the Government could not have introduced free nursing care by directing health authorities to pay for it—unless the Minister is suggesting that the country is littered with local authorities that would insist on paying for such care even when their health authorities were offering to do so and to provide it.
    I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, but I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions: he has come to the House supported by the usual invisible army, and I know that he would be disappointed if I did not do so. How has he reconciled the retention of community health councils with the creation of overview and scrutiny committees? There will be significant overlap of their functions and a potential for conflict between them.
    Will the Minister explain Government amendment No. 4, which proposes to leave out subsections (6) and (7) of proposed new section 19A, under clause 17, which deals with the introduction of independent advocacy services? Proposed new subsection (6) provides that, before making arrangements for independent advocacy services, the Secretary of State should consult the relevant patients council and any other persons "as he considers appropriate". Obviously, there will be no patients councils
    284
    to consult, so it is entirely appropriate to remove that reference. However, why should the Secretary of State not consult
    "such other persons as he considers appropriate"?
    By removing the subsection, the Minister will be allowing the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for the provision of independent advocacy services without a requirement to consult anybody on doing so.
    Government amendment No. 7 addresses schedule 5. It is not clear why the House should be minded to agree to the removal of a definition of a patient advocacy and liaison service, and to giving the Secretary of State free rein to define such a service through any regulations and in any way he chooses. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on those two points, because they are not merely consequential amendments, but significant changes to the process that the Secretary of State will have to undertake.
    Throughout, the Government's case for abolishing the CHCs is that they want to introduce something that is much stronger and much more effective. Their problem has been that no one believes them. It is true that CHCs are a thorn in the side of Health Ministers. The Minister knows that and my tight hon. and hon. Friends have told me the same thing. The function of CHCs is to be a thorn in the side of Health Ministers.
    One of the most common outputs of CHCs that Members receive is the excellent publication "Casualty Watch". Let us consider the Government's version of their motivation. The Secretary of State was sitting one morning in his office reading a copy of the Daily Mail with the headline, "The abandoned patients—Catalogue of shame as hospitals leave elderly waiting on trolleys". The article beneath it added:
    "A survey by Community Health Council workers across London revealed horrific examples of sick patients"
    and so on. We are asked to believe that the Secretary of State said to his advisers, "I have a great idea. Why don't we strengthen these bodies? Why don't we make them more independent and more effective so that they can produce more of this type of documentation and circulate it to the press and Opposition Members of Parliament?" That is a totally implausible scenario.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Instead of waving about the publications of the CHCs, would the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government cut the budget of CHC News, which kept the members of CHCs, like myself, informed of the issues that the CHCs were taking up with the Government? That measure made CHCs less effective.
    Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman might remember that the previous Conservative Government created CHCs precisely to undertake a scrutiny function.
    The Government have got themselves into a position in which Labour candidates will go into the general election pledging to abolish CHCs. Those candidates will have to defend the indefensible position that the Government have adopted in wishing to destroy these independent watchdogs and voices for patients. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mi. Harvey) said, the Government have created a dog's breakfast.

    285
    We are delighted that CHCs have been reprieved by the Government's climbdown today, but we would much prefer to hear that the Government permanently accept the advice that they have received from both sides of the House and from all sections of opinion outside that the CHCs should be retained and reformed, Instead, I hear from the Minister that this is a measure of expediency and that a Labour Government, if re-elected, would move swiftly to abolish the CHCs and remove the independent voice that they provide for patients.
    Mr. Denham: When I outlined the Government's position, I was able to set out exactly what would happen as a consequence of the amendments. I shall not respond to the Conservative party's caricature of our position as I have set out the policy that we shall pursue in the weeks to come.
    The debate has been revealing because not a single Conservative Members has engaged with the fundamental challenge that we set out to tackle. The fact is that, despite much hard work and good will, 25 years on, we do not have a patient-centred NHS or the structures that mean that it has been organised around the needs of patients. Nothing other than that fact motivated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, me and other Ministers to introduce the proposals in the NHS plan. They remain our commitment.
    I do not criticise hon. Members who want to praise the work of their local community health council, but the debate revealed the extent to which the Conservatives have tried to caricature what the Government proposed. It simply is not true that we wanted lass independent and less powerful bodies, that were not as able to speak up for patients or to carry out activities—such as those performed by Casualty Watch—as the CHCs. We wanted to achieve a system of patients councils, patients forums and a national body that, taken together, would have been stronger, more powerful and, indeed, more independent than today's arrangements. I believe that we could have achieved that and had greater consistency across the country because everyone accepts that services are patchy and inconsistent. The hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) clearly had not attempted to read or understand the Bill before it went to the other place or after it was initially amended there.
    There is one reason—and only one—why the Government have reached this decision. Everyone knows that, at this stage of a Parliament, unless both Houses of Parliament agree on all aspects of a Bill, it will fall. In this case, the provisions for free nursing care would have fallen with it. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) really believes that this primary legislation is not needed, it is a little late for him to speak up now. He did not say that previously. We need primary legislation so that we have a secure statutory base for what we intend to do. We are not prepared to lose free nursing care because both Houses cannot agree on other aspects of the Bill. That is a fundamental principle and the right position to take.
    Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister acknowledge that I raised that point in Committee?
    Mr. Denham: I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was also wrong in Committee, but if he wants me to confirm that, then fine. Doing things by direction does not provide a satisfactorily—
    Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister asked why I did not raise the matter before, and I told him that I had in Committee.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair
    Mr. Denham: I apologise for not realising that the hon. Gentleman was wrong twice. I thought that he was wrong only once. For the record, however, I confirm that he was wrong twice.
    Let me stress that we are not prepared to lose free nursing care because the two Houses of Parliament fail to agree.
    I suspect that I will not have time to cover in detail all the issues raised. On the overview and scrutiny committees, we will need to consider in depth, after the election, the way in which their new powers will fit with the legal powers of CHCs. That is important. We will have to consider the best way of delivering advocacy services, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) referred. Given the support of the CHC staff association for the Bill a few weeks ago, I regret the fact that there might be some uncertainty about it. We will want to work with them in the weeks and months to come to ensure that their position is properly looked after.
    It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair pursuant to Order [this day].
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15, 62, 73, 74, 82 and 83 disagreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].
    Consequential amendments Nos. 1 to 9 agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Denham, Maria Eagle, Mr. Philip Hammond, Mr.David Jamieson and Mr. Peter Luff; Mr. John Denham to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of Lord amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill (Programme)(No. 2)
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 29th January:

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill (Programme)(No. 2)
    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. (1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

    Subsequent stages
    2. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
    (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Touhig.]

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  1.50 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 25. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
    Clause 1

      OFFENCES LEADING TO PENALTIES ON THE SPOT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Clarke: It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that the Government do not intend to divide the House on any of the Lords amendments that we shall consider this afternoon, including Lords amendment No. 35 to clause 126, on which the Government were defeated in the other place yesterday. I shall briefly set out the reasons for that in relation to each group of amendments when we come to them.
      At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Opposition—both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place—because we have all sought to work co-operatively and constructively to achieve a situation in which the Bill can be dealt with as effectively as possible. That is reflected in the amendments before us.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: The Bill has been subject to a new form of scrutiny under the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Obviously, given the time scale, there has not been time to debate the
      288
      Committee's report. Given the comments of the Father of the House yesterday about Parliament needing greater powers of scrutiny, will my hon. Friend comment on the grilling that he and his officials were given by the Committee and, in particular, on whether that was a constructive approach? It would benefit the House to know that.
      Mr. Clarke: I am happy to comment on that briefly. I was the first Minister to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the implications of the legislation, and that was a substantive arid critical process. The Committee's report was positive and constructive and opens up ways in which we can Address human rights issues more effectively. Many fears have been expressed about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for many aspects of public life. So far, however, the courts' decisions on those questions, including the High Court's decisions on planning yesterday, indicate that the Act can improve and enhance the way in which we work without jeopardising the traditional way in which we have done things in this country. The work of the Joint Committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, is important in that regard, and I pay tribute to its report.
      The amendments will remove two offences from the list under clause 1 to which fixed penalty notices apply. That will mean that penalty notices cannot be issued for offences of criminal damage or offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Amendments were tabled in Committee by Lord Cope, Viscount Bridgeman and Baroness Buscombe. As a result of an extremely constructive debate in the other place and after careful consideration, we are content to omit both offences from the list of those for which penalty notices can be issued. That will allow time for further consideration of the practicalities of how the penalty notice scheme will operate in relation to such offences. The affirmative order procedure can then be used to put back in whatever is agreed.
      I acknowledge that, in Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised many concerns about high level criminal damage and that well-motivated amendments were tabled by his colleagues in the other place; they were trying to improve the law, not adopting a pettifogging or nitpicking approach.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: What is it about those two offences that distinguishes them from the others? Why has the Minister agreed to the removal of just those two from the list?
      Mr. Clarke: There was a different reason for removing each offence. In Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a series of arguments about criminal damage. He said that, with the higher level of criminal damage, there was a danger of the fixed penalty notice procedure being used to evade the full possibility of higher level criminal sanctions. I think that he would acknowledge that I made it clear that that was not our intention and that we were dealing only with offences that caused a lower level of criminal damage. However, there was the ambiguity to which he drew attention in Committee, as did his noble Friends in the other place. We therefore decided to remove the offence from the list.

      289
      On the public order offence, it was argued in the other place and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee—he can speak for himself in this debate—that it was important to have a clear record of individuals who had been involved in such offences. Concern was expressed that without such a record, the fixed penalty notice procedure could undermine what the police sought to achieve more generally.
      We did not entirely accept that argument. We did not think that it had as much force as the criminal damage point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, but we thought that it was not an insubstantial point. Because secondary legislation will allow us to revisit the matter, we were prepared to accept the amendments tabled in the other place. That was our reason for picking those two offences out of the list of eight—I think that that was the original number—offences under the fixed penalty notice procedure. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment tabled by the Lords.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: May I say how pleased I am that the other place has agreed the two amendments? As the Minister said, the matters were discussed in Committee. The argument for omitting the two offences from the fixed penalty notice regime was based partly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on Second Reading, and partly on our analysis of fixed penalty notices.
      Fixed penalty notices should deal with the most minor offences of their type. They are not for more serious matters. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, if a more serious offence of criminal damage was dealt with under this procedure, first, there would be a problem with compensation, which is payable only on conviction, and secondly, the procedure would not mark the event adequately. Serious offences of criminal damage are serious matters.
      We took the view that public order offences are serious and that the fixed penalty notice regime was not entirely suitable. As the Minister observed, and as I pointed out previously, it is important that we know who is committing public order offences and that we have a record so that if, for example, we want to identify those who are guilty of football hooliganism in order to implement the appropriate provisions, or if we want to deal with those who are conspicuous in their activities on May day, we know how many times those people have committed public order offences and broadly what they have done. That was the thinking behind the amendments. I am pleased that the Minister agrees that the Lords amendments should stand.
      There has not been an opportunity for members of the Committee to thank the staff, the police and the Chairman of the Committee. I shall say nothing further about the Committee stage. There is still a motion on the Order Paper, which I am glad will not be debated. However, it is right to put on record our thanks to the staff and all those who helped us in Committee. as we would have done if the Committee had ended in the normal way.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the amendments. The Government and colleagues will remember that our view was that the list of fixed penalty offences was far too long. To correct the Minister's recollection, there were 12 offences in the list that
      290
      the Government wanted added. We thought that some of them were too serious to be the subject of fixed penalty notices, and some were not serious enough. We took the view that if the Government had been doing their work properly, they would have provided for other offences to be added, but allowed for separate consideration of those offences in due course, without pressure, rather than picking out of the consultation process such a motley group of offences.
      The amendments whittle down the group of offences from 12 to 10. To that extent, the Bill has been improved and brought nearer to what we sought to achieve. However, it is still not ideal and contains offences that are inappropriate for the application of fixed penalty notices. It is sad that we must now proceed by amending legislation in future to get the matter right, rather than by deciding it through the secondary statutory instrument procedure that is otherwise available to us.
      2 pm
      Neither the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) nor I engaged in the debate that we could have had a moment ago, as such discussion would have eaten into the time that is allowed us. However, I want to place on record one of the frustrations of the way in which the Bill has been considered—a frustration that does not apply only to amendments such as those before us. The process has ensured that the flagship Bill of this Session has been rushed through this House, pushed under pressure in the other place and then guillotined in its final stage. We all understand that matters are curtailed when the Dissolution of Parliament is announced and we make no complaint about that. However, it is entirely unsatisfactory to allow flagship legislation to be chopped for debate in the House of Commons, pressurised into less debate in the Lords and then chopped and curtailed again in this House. I regret that that process ensures that, although there are matters proper for debate, we will have the minimum time available—one hour—to debate them. The amendments improve the Bill, but in our view, they do not improve it enough. Of course, I expect that we will speak about some of its remaining defects later.
      Mr. Malins: As always, I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and a deputy district judge.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I have been made a little happier, as the amendments remove two of the potentially more serious offences from the clause, so that we can see how it works. The problem with an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is that the top end of the scale is quite nasty and can be very serious.
      If a youngster tells a policemen to "something off'—the House will know what I could have said—his action can be used by the police as a section 5 offence. That happens a lot in London. I would be a little unhappy if such an offence were to get a ticket. There is sometimes a risk of moving into the criminal sphere matters that it does not encompass, and the large scale of section 5 means that it is right for the specified offence to be removed from the clause. Likewise, for the reasons so eloquently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, there is an argument for removing the criminal damage aspect of the clause.

      291
      The Minister should note that the clause nevertheless contains two potentially troubling offences. First, it refers to
      "Using a public telecommunications system for sending a message known to be false in order to cause annoyance."
      I assume—and I should know—that that does not cover bomb hoax calls, which are dealt with by separate legislation and are a very serious matter.
      The sending of false messages by telephone can be nasty. I am trying to think of examples. Certainly, the act of knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade can be serious. The inclusion of such offences in such a small provision is odd. It is hard to say whether it is over the top to suggest that such offences can be serious and ask whether they can be just as serious as, for example, the bottom end of the specified criminal damage offence or of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I know from my colleagues on the stipendiary bench that they sometimes treat wasting police time or giving false report as very serious. I appreciate that the Minister intends that those offences should be suitable for a ticket only when they are at the bottom end of the scale. However, the wide-ranging nature of the issue means that it will involve the exercise of a certain amount of discretion by people whom I hope will be trained or adequately qualified to exercise it.
      The Minister will know that what was then the metropolitan stipendiary bench was not consulted before the Bill was produced. That was extraordinary because 90 per cent. of all crime is tried in magistrates courts. The stipendiary bench, as it was, takes the lead in all crime in inner-city areas and, as he knows, is full of experts. It is too late to do anything about that now, but in future when he is consulting or discussing how the legislation is working I hope that he will not forget to consult that element of our judiciary.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: First, I can give the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) a general assurance on future consultation of stipendiary magistrates. Secondly, I was remiss in not extending thanks to the people who served the Committee. I was unwilling to bring back to the House the memory of the disgraceful events at the end of the Committee, which brought Parliament, the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) into such disrepute. I am sure that the country will be aware of that during the coming general election campaign. It is absolutely right to pay tribute to all those who helped us in Committee: the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard, my officials in the Home Office who were assiduous throughout the process, and all members of the Committee.
      I do not accept the criticisms about the lack of time to scrutinise this matter in the Chamber. We have discussed it on other occasions. On the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Woking, we are removing the two widest-ranging offences for the reasons that he gave. Each of the offences has some range and we shall have to see how the system works. I should perhaps remind the House that there is power to remove as well as to add offences to the table in clause 1 by subordinate legislation. I can
      292
      give the commitment that he seeks: the Government will keep under close review all offences in the operation of this legislation. Subsequently, we will decide what further action we might take
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment Vo. 2 agreed to.

    Clause 17

      CLOSURE OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES DUE TO DISORDER OR DISTURBANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 12, after "of' insert "and related to'.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
      Mr. Clarke: These amendments would require that any disorder, or likely disorder, in the vicinity of the licensed premises must also be related to the premises in question before a closure order could be made on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of public safety.
      This, again, was a matter that we debated at length in Committee. The various interests concerned have been assiduous in making their representations on the issue. The amendments were tabled by Lord Cope of Berkeley during the Committee stage in the other place. We took the view that they were unnecessary for reasons that I gave earlier. We accept the need for all the parties affected to be clear about the Bill and the case for making it absolutely clear that disorder or threat of disorder must relate to the premises in question before a closure order can be made.
      The other four amendments make consequential changes to give effect to this change wherever similar tests must be applied by the courts and the police, for example when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I hope that the House will agree the amendments.
      Mr. Heald: The amendments were tabled in Committee in this House and in the other place, and I am delighted that they appear on the amendment paper today.
      Those who keep public houses and licensed premises—the industry—accept that it may well be necessary to close rowdy premises at short notice. However, they were particularly concerned that that might happen when the likely disturbance or the disturbance occurring in the vicinity of the premises had nothing to do with their particular premises. A police officer might therefore believe that there would be trouble in an area and close the public house when its activities did not merit it.
      The scope of the original wording was too wide to catch the badly run houses that cause serious disorder problems and put public safety at risk. We therefore welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept the view of another place that the wording should be narrowed to relate the disorder that is in prospect, or that has occurred, to the premises.
      I believe that the Minister made a vow not to mention the Committee stage and it was therefore a pity that he broke it. I defend my right hon. Friend the Member for

      293
      Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who did not act disgracefully. She took all the measures that were available to her to deal with circumstances in which democracy was at risk.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the amendments. The battle throughout our proceedings has been to restrict the powers that the Bill grants the authorities against the liberties of individuals and businesses. It was a perpetual theme of the Committee stage. A Labour Government, trying to be excessively authoritarian, had to justify themselves against all sorts of arguments. Some were made by Conservative Members, others by us and many by people outside the House. We tried to point out that the powers were simply unnecessary.
      I put my neck on the block on Third Reading, and made it clear that, if a general election had taken place on 3 May, various clauses would not have been passed. I can say with authority, after conferring with colleagues in another place, that although we would have tabled amendments such as those that we are discussing, other amendments, such as Government proposals to extend curfews and to hold samples of DNA from people who were shown to be innocent would not have been accepted. The House of Lords would not have allowed the Bill to proceed. The month's delay has meant more time for debate in another place, where the Government argued that their proposals had been tested and were able to win votes. Consequently. the Bill has been allowed to proceed in its current form.
      We were unable to win some of the big battles against a Government who have a majority in the House. They have a majority under our electoral system, but not in the country. We are therefore grateful for small victories. There was a danger of imposing closure orders on pubs for unrelated activities outside them. That is unacceptable. In a busy, built-up area such as the Old Kent road in my constituency, the police might take the view that some activities were causing disorder and intervene. If the amendments are accepted, closure orders can be imposed only if the prospective or actual disorder is "related to" the relevant pub. Pubs that keep good order will not be in trouble. That is progress. We wish that the Government had been more enlightened on other matters for which we would support a more liberal and less authoritarian regime.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to.

    Clause 19

      CLOSURE NOTICES
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 17, line 3, after "being" insert ", or within the last 24 hours have been,"
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Clarke: The amendments clarify that the power in clause 19 to issue closure notices can be used against premises, which, to the satisfaction of the police or the local authority, have been used for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor at some time in the previous 24 hours.
      294
      As currently drafted, the relevant subsections of clause 19 could be interpreted to mean that a closure notice could be issued only if the use of the premises for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor had continued until the notice was served. That restricted effect was not intended, especially as it would not cover cases where use did not continue when the police or the local authority wished to serve their notice, although it had occurred in the previous 24 hours and was more than likely to recur later.
      The purpose of clauses 19 to 28 is to allow action against specific premises, where there is continuing offending or where offending has occurred in the past 24 hours. The amendments therefore make technical changes, which confirm that action may be taken when illegal use has occurred in a previous period of 24 hours. I hope that they will be agreed.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: We agree that the amendments clarify the Bill helpfully. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I repeatedly expressed our anxiety in Committee that some clauses, including those that we are considering, had been too hastily drafted. The Minister will acknowledge that several concessions that the Government made in another place and that he is confirming today are a response to the anxieties that we and people in the licensed trade have repeatedly expressed.
      Many clauses have been drafted too quickly. We have used nearly half the time, which is too short, that has been allocated to consider the long list of amendments. That means that we are again rushing matters through with almost indecent haste. We shall consider matters that are even more significant later, and I therefore do not wish to detain the House for long.
      The Government have belatedly acknowledged that, as we suggested in Committee, the aspect that we are considering was not sufficiently clear. We are pleased that the Government have accepted, at this late stage, that the drafting needed improving, as we consistently said.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I want to make a further point. It is important that society clamps down on alcohol abuse, and abuse by those who are licensed to sell alcohol of the terms and conditions whereby they are permitted to do that. Alcohol is a major cause of crime. The Government acknowledge that; there is no disagreement between the parties about the matter.
      Drugs—alcohol is a drug—often cause serious, especially violent crime. It is therefore appropriate to do all that we can to ensure that those who lawfully buy and sell alcohol act within the law. I hope that we shall continue to be vigilant to ensure that alcohol abuse does not continue to the same extent, with the terrible consequences that society currently suffers.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to.

    After Clause 37
    Lords amendment: No. 15, to insert the following new clause—Permitting use of controlled drugs on premises—
    For paragraph (d) of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) (offence of knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises) there shall be substituted—

    295
    "(d) administering or using a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession at or immediately before the time when it is administered or used.""
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 39.
    Mr. Clarke: The amendment to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would facilitate police action against closed drug markets, such as crack houses. Under the 1971 Act, it is currently an offence for the occupier or manager of premises knowingly to allow illegal drugs to be produced or supplied on them. However, liability for the use of illegal drugs extends only to smoking cannabis or opium. That reflects the drug misuse patterns that prevailed when the Act was introduced. We believe that Lords amendment No. 15 will play an important part in updating the powers available to the police and the courts in tackling drug abuse, and it is supported by the police.
    As we argued both on Report and in Committee, we felt that the change was not necessary. However, the official Opposition did not accept that view either on the Floor of the House or in private discussions that I had with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). In the light of concerns about a lack of clarity in the legislation, we decided that it would be better to accept Lords amendment No. 15 than to have a rather arcane discussion about the legalisms involved in the particular circumstances. Consequently, both in the other place and in this place, we have accepted the amendment, which we hope will have the effects that have been widely advertised.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am very glad that the Minister expressed his concession as he did. The amendment is the result of a very long-running campaign by the official Opposition which has been led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and, in another place, by my noble Friend Lord Cope. My noble friends Baroness Buscombe and Baroness Hanham also have continued to press the Government on the issue.
    We knew all along, as the Minister has very fairly conceded today, that the police were desperate for an amendment to the 1971 Act that enabled them particularly to clamp down on crack houses. As my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe said:
    "These amendments represent the closing of a frustrating, glaring loophole in the law given the now sadly prevalent use of crack cocaine by illegal drug, users."
    My noble Friend also mentioned the fact that, back on 23 January, Baroness Hanham had
    "laid down a challenge to the Government to crack down on crack houses."—[Official Report, House of Lords, I May 2001; Vol. 624, c. 1759.]
    A moment ago, in our previous debate, I mentioned some important amendments that have to be made to the Bill, and Lords amendment No. 15 is one of the most important of them. All of us know, and police are particularly aware, that crack cocaine is one of the most dangerously addictive illegal drugs. Very sadly, crack houses have become increasingly prevalent in our society, especially in inner cities and town centres.
    296
    The Opposition have been surprised that it has taken the Government so long to accept our arguments on this vital issue. Nevertheless, there is even greater joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth. Even at the 59th minute of the 11th hour of this Parliament, the Government's acceptance of our view is welcome. We think that the amendment will add a strong weapon to the police's armoury in dealing with one of our society's most important scourges—illegal drugs, and particularly crack cocaine, which is one of the most dangerous.
    I therefore welcome the Government's concession, although I wish that they had made it a great deal earlier. Nevertheless, even at the last minute, it is greatly to be welcomed.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Liberal Democrat Members welcome Lords amendment No. 15. I have just one question for the Minister which I hope that he will be good enough to answer. It seems that the amendment would not only achieve its main purpose of making crack house activity illegal, but that it could change the law to legalise other activities that currently are illegal. Is that so? I ask the question simply because the offence was previously defined as
    "knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises",
    and that definition is being changed to encompass different types of activity.
    Mr. Clarke: Reflecting on the question, as the hon. Gentleman asked it, and quickly taking advice from colleagues, I think that I can confirm that the amendment does not have the effect that he fears it might have.
    Mr. Hughes: It was a neutral question and did not express a view. I simply wanted to ensure that the Government's understanding was that the amendment will extend the remit of the 1971 Act without reducing the provision in other spheres. I appreciate that I asked the question without providing notice of it, and I would be grateful if the Minister would place on the record any advice that he might receive on it. It is important that we are clear on the issue.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41

      POLICE DIRECTIONS STOPPING THE HARASSMENT ETC. OF A PFRSON IN HIS HOME
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 2, line 22, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
      Mr. Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22.
      Mr. Clarke: The origin of this group of amendments, which are essentially identical, was concerns expressed in Committee in the other place by the Opposition, who suggested that the person concerned should be described as a target rather than as a victim. We felt that the precedent for use of the word victim lay in its use in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Having given

      297
      further consideration to how to try to meet the concerns expressed by the Opposition in the other place, we feel that the word resident is a better choice than either the word victim or the word target. We do not believe that the change would have an impact on the effect of the clause.
      We believe that the change will provide a higher level of objectivity in the terminology that is being used. Specifically, it will take account of the sensitivities of those who are subject to such harassment and may well not wish to be defined as victims because of the association of the word victims with particular circumstances. Consequently, we propose to replace the word victim with the word resident in this group of amendments.
      Mr. Heald: We are content with Lords amendment No. 16. I should say that the concerns expressed in the House on Second Reading about events at Huntingdon Life Sciences have been dealt with in the Bill. Amendments to the Bill allow the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be tightened up and enable directors to register their addresses confidentially. Other provisions deal with the practice of besetting people's homes. Amendment No. 16 deals with one of those matters.
      It is good that both sides of the House have agreed on the need to tackle the issue and that it has been possible to make progress. However, the official Opposition cannot take the credit for this group of amendments, as they address a Liberal Democrat issue that was raised first, in Committee, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and later, in the other place, by Lord Phillips. They should take the credit for the amendments, with which we are happy.
      Mr. Miller: I should like simply to press my hon. Friend the Minister on the use of language in the clause. Definitions are sometimes extremely difficult. I suppose that it is pretty obvious to individuals when we are victims, although it may not always be entirely obvious to the courts. Is my hon. Friend happy that the full spirit of the original clause is encompassed by use of the word resident? Does the word encompass only permanent residents, or does it include, for example, those who are temporarily resident in a dwelling or legitimately resident in an hotel room? Are all those potential circumstances covered to his satisfaction in the Bill?
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman might be assisted by considering the points that my noble Friend Lord Cope made—on 1 May 2001, at column 1782 of the House of Lords Official Report—when he asked about using the word resident, victim, target or person in the clause. The official Opposition in the other place suggested using the word person. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. We want to ensure that the clause in its final form is workable, so that those who are doing that very important scientific work are properly protected.
      Mr. Miller: I am speaking in the debate because of the type of English that the hon. Gentleman has just used. Although I am used to dealing with scientific terms, in the Bill we are addressing much more complex definitional issues. I am merely seeking to determine whether my hon. Friend the Minister is satisfied that the intention of the clause will be the same as when it
      298
      contained the word victim, and that it will operate similarly in all circumstances in which a person is a victim in a dwelling. It would be helpful to clarify the issue.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman a response, although it is not yet the official Government response. It may be shorter than he anticipated.
      Mr. Heald: Yesterday, I was able to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was a coincidence that the Prime Minister had visited his constituency on Tuesday and he had a red box with him during our debate in Westminster Hall yesterday. Now he seems to be telling us that he is about to form a Government. He is obviously having a good week, but I do not think that he should let the fact that Millwall won 5-0 last Saturday go to his head.
      Mr. Hughes: In reverse order: the Millwall victory that sent the Lions roaring into the first division is entirely to be commended; the red box yesterday was entirely coincidental as it was supplied by my office with some letters for me to sign, but it was good practice. I should also put it on the record that no deal has been reached between the Liberal Democrats and any other party before the general election. Lastly, the Prime Minister made a terrible error of judgment by coming to the school and making a speech over the heads of the young people. It may have lost him the votes of many of the parents at that school, but that is to be seen.
      Mr. Miller: What was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) doing?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been quite some latitude. Will hon. Members get back to the subject of the debate?
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was at a primary school with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats that very afternoon.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman and tell him that we spoke to the pupils rather than ignoring them.
      The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point about the wording and I am grateful for his attribution to my noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There was a debate about what the right wording should be. The term "victim" was deemed inappropriate because it prejudges the outcome of the complaint and that clearly would be wrong. The term that had been used in the past was "person" and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is used in other statutes. However, I think that we can get away with using the word resident although it is not necessarily the best word. My understanding is that it does not cover only those who are permanently at an address, but anyone who is there at the time. Of course it would not cover someone who was there for a matter of moments and that may be a weakness. It may therefore be that we need to give the matter more consideration. The reason it is right to change the wording is that it is wrong to prejudge the outcome of the complaint.

      299
      The legislation received wide support across the House and, as the Minister and his colleagues were at pains to point out, it gives the police a discretionary power in respect of certain activities. We look to the police to be wise in their discretion because there is a need to get the balance right between allowing lawful protest on the one hand and preventing intimidatory and improper protest on the other. The second should be outlawed, but absolutely not the first.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: To respond briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I am advised that we consider that the amendments do not change the effect of the clause and the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are right. It covers any protests outside residential premises, anywhere being used as a dwelling, but it does not include hotels, for reasons that we discussed in Committee. We are satisfied with this and I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22 agreed to.

  After Clause 44
  Lords amendment: No. 23, to insert the following new clause—Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution—

  (1) A person commits an offence if—

  (a) he places on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public telephone an advertisement relating to prostitution. and

  (b) he does so with the intention that the advertisement should come to the attention of any other person or persons.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, an advertisement is an advertisement relating to prostitution if it—

  (a) is for the services of a prostitute, whether male or female; or

  (b) indicates that premises are premises at which such services are offered.

  (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section. any advertisement which a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution shall be presumed to be such an advertisement unless it is shown not to be.

  (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. or both.

  (5) In this section—

  "public telephone" means—

  (a) any telephone which is located in a public place and made available for use by the public, or a section of the public, and

  (b) where such a telephone is located in or on, or attached to, a kiosk, booth, acoustic hood, shelter or other structure, that structure; and
  "public place" means any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise, other than—

  (a) any place to which children under the age of 16 years are not permitted to have access, whether by law or otherwise, and

  (b) any premises which are wholly or mainly used for residential purposes.

  300

  (6) In section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences), in subsection (2) (offences which are arrestable offences), after paragraph (c) insert-

  "(ca) an offence under section (Placing of advertisement relating to prostitution) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;"."
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 24.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall devote a few moments to presenting this important new clause, which carries the support of the House. The two new clauses would make it an arrestable criminal offence to place prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes.
  To combat any changes in advertising strategy that result from attempts to circumvent the new offence, the new clauses would allow the Secretary of State to extend the provisions to cover other street furniture.
  Let me pay public tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who was motivated by events in her constituency to introduce a private Member's Bill. She has been a consistent campaigner on these matters, with general support across the House. The Government have long agreed with the policy ambitions set out in the new clause, but we did not feel that we had enough space to include them in the Bill. As the matter was pressed in the other place and because we have no policy disagreement with the provisions, we are glad to agree to the Lords amendment and to commend it to the House today.
  Prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes are a matter on which there has long been concern, which is reflected in the two new clauses. The cards are often explicit. They can be seen by children and can obscure important information, such as advertisements for Childline and the Samaritans. They are offensive and intimidating to those who use public telephones. They are part of the increasingly organised business of prostitution and can advertise young people involved in prostitution and, importantly, those trafficked for sexual exploitation.
  The individuals who are paid to place the cards can be intimidating, threatening and sometimes violent to members of the public and those employed to clean the telephone boxes. Telephone companies incur great expense in removing the cards while losing revenue from legitimate advertising.
  We recognise that the problem is at present confined to specific areas, such as central London and Brighton. It is also a serious issue in my Norwich constituency. However, it is a very serious problem. Every week, British Telecom removes some 150,000 cards from its 700 telephone boxes in central London. It is also a growing problem, which is why the offence would apply nationally. The offence would be committed by any person who places what a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution in a public telephone box.
  We are confident that the definition is sufficiently robust to cover advertisements that imply that the services of prostitutes are available without making this explicit

  301
  on the face of the card. Equally, in the exceptional case where a person has naively put up an advertisement which appears to be for prostitution, but is genuinely shown not to be criminal, liability will not follow.
  The offence will attract a power of arrest. This will enable the police to take swift action to stop this nuisance occurring. Those convicted of the offence will face a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine. The level of penalty reflects the serious nature of the nuisance caused by the cards and our determination to prevent the individuals concerned from blighting the lives of those who live in the areas affected.
  We recognise that those behind organised prostitution will seek to circumvent any legislation that we introduce. That is why the second new clause gives the Secretary of State a power to extend the legislation to cover other types of public structures, such as bus shelters, by affirmative resolution.
  Finally, I should note that although this amendment is an important part of tackling the problem, there are other measures that can complement legislation. Oftel has had talks with the telecommunications industry about a call barring scheme and will develop further proposals in consultation with the industry. Part of the agreement with the industry is that we will do what we can in legislation and the industry will do what it can on the technological side.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister told us that the penalty would be a level 5 fine and a maximum of six months' imprisonment. He said that that demonstrated the Government's view of the seriousness of the crime. Can he give us some examples of other crimes for which the penalty is a level 5 fine and six months' imprisonment?
  Mr. Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information off the cuff. One of the pieces of advice that I have given myself—and usually taken—is not to give off-the-cuff information across the Floor of the House as it might not be well-informed. However, we take the matter extremely seriously, particularly the trafficking in people for prostitution. There is a whole range of other offences that are designed to deal with people who traffic in migrants in that way.
  I commend the amendments to the House. They are an important step forward that will help communities work in a more effective way.
  Mr. Heald: The amendments were moved in the other place by the noble Baroness Buscombe, and I would like to pay tribute to the campaign that she and others have waged on the issue. Westminster city council was particularly concerned about this issue, which has also concerned hon. Members for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will recall that Olga Maitland also campaigned on the issue—
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: She will be back, in Sutton and Cheam.
  Mr. Heald: I am told that she is coming back to represent Sutton and Cheam and that will certainly be a happy moment.
  302
  The concern that prompted the amendment was that people in areas such as Brighton and Hove, and central London, should not have to be confronted with sordid images when they are simply trying to make a telephone call. It is also expensive for an organisation such as British Telecom, which spends £250,000 a year clearing the cards from its 1,000 boxes in central London. The measure will allow people to make telephone calls without being pestered in that way.
  It is right that relatively serious penalties should be applied, for the reasons that the Minister mentioned. Those who are involved in the trade are often making considerable sums of money. If there are persistent offenders who, time and again, place cards in boxes and will not learn their lesson, tough penalties should be available to deal with them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We agree strongly with the need to take action on this activity. It is offensive that every phone box in London is littered with such cards. As the Minister said, it is bad enough for the mass of the population, but it is particularly offensive to many women and inappropriate and unsuitable for children, as well as being unhelpful. We need to protect the public interest, albeit in what is technically private space. I am glad to hear that the private telephone companies are also taking their share of the work.
  I hope that when the police take action, with the support of local authorities such as Westminster, which has been assiduous in the matter, they will concentrate not on the runners—the people who are paid a bit of pocket money to put the cards in the phone boxes—but on the people who are making a lot of money behind the scenes. They are the big fish who need to be caught because they make a lot of money exploiting people in the sex trade.
  We must also revisit the wider debate. We are living a fiction in this country about prostitution. Like abortion, it has always happened and will always happen. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the present laws against it will stop it, we will deceive the public whom we are here to represent. It is right to deal with the issue of the cards in this Bill, but I hope that whichever party or parties are in government after the election, they will be brave enough to reconsider the law on prostitution.
  Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

  Part 2
  Lords amendment: No. 25, Leave out Part 2.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 40 and 41.
  Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 25 and 41 will have the effect of removing part 2, on information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings, from the Bill. Amendment No. 36 is a drafting amendment consequential on the removal of the words in amendment No. 37, which is consequential on the removal of part 2 from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are also consequential.

  303
  This is the first group of amendments to be considered today with which the Government disagree, but we accept them under force majeure of the balance of the parties in the other place.
  Mr. Heald: I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's remarks, because Lord Bassam said that he was happy to be associated with the amendments. He also complimented Lord Cope on the cogent way in which he had expressed the Opposition's view on the Bill. Lord Bassam also admitted that the Government's proposals required better and more detailed evaluation. He certainly seemed to say that he did not disagree with the amendments.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Clarke: My noble Friend Lord Bassam was trying to pay tribute to the way in which Front Benchers had tried to work together to reach solutions in everybody's interest. However, on the substance of policy, we do not agree with two groups of amendments before us today—the current group and the other on clause 126, which deals with police conduct. We will accept the amendments because of our desire to get the whole Bill through.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendments were jointly tabled by the Government and the official Opposition in the other place. Is it in order for the Minister to resile from them?
  Mr. Mike Hall: The Minister can do anything.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is entirely a matter for the Minister in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: I am trying to express the Government's position as clearly as I can. Part 2 would have implemented Government policy to improve the ability of public authorities to disclose information for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings. That is an important part of the Government's overall strategy in the fight against crime and it is why I am disappointed that those clauses are being removed.
  Given the short time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have decided to give further scrutiny to that part of the legislation. If the Government are re-elected, we will consider the best way to proceed with those useful reforms and how to use other legislative vehicles to do so.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am afraid that we have just seen a most extraordinary approach to the amendments by the Minister, who seeks to reject everything that Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments with the official Opposition in the other place. It simply is not good enough for a Minister in the Lords to table amendments jointly with the Opposition and then for this Minister to say that the Government do not really agree with them. The House will also have noted the attitude of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who said a moment ago that the Minister could do anything. That has been the approach of the Government for the past four years
  304
  and it is why they will be turfed out of office on 7 June. They have demonstrated contempt for the principles of democracy and the Minister cannot get away with saying that the Government are accepting the amendments only under force majeure in the other place—
  Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, because the Minister is trying to resile from what Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments and accepting the Government's defeat on amendment No. 35. I have made the point repeatedly that we have had inadequate time to debate the Government's concessions and, with only two minutes left this afternoon, it is indisputable that the Government have had to abandon the whole of part 2 as a result of these jointly tabled amendments.
  Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I will not give way because time is short. The reason why that is happening is that Lord Bassam said as recently as yesterday in the other place:
  "we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill."
  Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No. I have told the Minister that I will not give way because the Government have given us so little time. Lord Bassam continued—
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the whole statement made by my noble Friend in the other place?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister was premature in his intervention, because I proposed to continue the quotation. Lord Bassam said:
  "This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001: Vol. 624, c. 2173.]
  Mr. Clarke: That is not the whole sentence.
  Mr. Hawkins: That is the whole sentence. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that the amendments were tabled jointly—
  It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to [Special Entry].
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43 agreed to.

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
  2.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I beg to move,
  That the Order of 3rd April 2001 (International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:—

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

    Consideration and Third Reading
    1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

    2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

    The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bill was discussed in another place before it came to this House for debate in Committee. That debate was excellent, and the Bill is in good shape.
    In Committee, we discussed 58 of the amendments tabled by the Opposition, and only six were not debated. Our considerations gave rise to substantial and high-quality debate.
    Some of the matters tabled for consideration this afternoon have been discussed at all stages of the Bill so far. However, I am confident that we can deal with them in the time allowed, and that we can continue to work constructively on the details of the Bill. I am pleased that we are discussing it today, and I hope that we can make further good progress in the time remaining.
    The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said in Committee on 1 May that quite good progress had been made on the Bill. I think that that is right; in my experience of the House, the quality of debate in Committee was exceptional.
    The motion is not merely a result of the fact that we are caught up in the timetable dictated by the Dissolution of Parliament. The Bill has to go through Parliament now so that Britain can be one of the first 60 states to ratify the Rome statute. We have been involved in shaping that statute from the outset, a process that has taken years, and our officials worked hard on its original provisions. We want to sign up early so that we can remain in a position to shape the International Criminal Court.
    Finally, much interest in the Bill has been expressed by non-governmental organisations such as the International Red Cross, and they have said that they want the Bill to go ahead. There has been almost universal support—including among Opposition Members—for the principles of the Bill, although I understand that some Opposition Back-Bench Members are still not comfortable with the position adopted by their Front-Bench colleagues.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Correct.
    Mr. Battle: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) says that that is correct, but the matter is one for those on the Opposition Front Bench to sort out, not me.
    My point is that NGOs and other bodies outside the House with an interest in the matter have been assiduous in making representations. We have taken those representations seriously, and I hope that those bodies feel that we have taken many of their considerations on board.
    2.53 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I must inform the Minister that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not sort out our Back-Bench colleagues, but allow them to speak their minds as and when they wish. Not for one minute would I seek to impose my views on a piece of legislation, or those of other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, on independent-minded and responsible Back Benchers. The Minister may think that we act in the same way as the Labour party so obviously does with regard to its members, but I must disabuse him.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, and for her typical generosity of spirit. Following her guidance, I hope that I shall be able to exercise a small degree of independence.
    Does my hon. Friend agree with the Minister's apparent contention that, when a body called an NGO expresses a view about a matter, that legitimises an amendment to legislation in this House? Members of Parliament are here to make our own judgment about what is right and what is wrong. We should take account of what NGOs say, but those organisation should not by any means have the first or last word on a matter.
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend is right. Non-governmental organisations play an important role in making representations, and we should listen to them carefully. Where we find merit in the points that they put forward, we should pursue them.
    Indeed, it was a great shame that the Government did not listen more carefully to some of the representations made to them. We were forced to table amendments to the Bill in Committee so that matters proposed by well meaning and interested parties could be discussed. It was a great shame that the Minister could not persuade the Government to take into consideration the views of the much vaunted NGOs on which he seeks to rely.
    I am most disappointed that, on what is in effect the final day of this Parliament, the House should be faced with a programme motion on this Bill. The Minister moved a programme motion in the House on 3 April, at the beginning of proceedings on the Bill. He gave the undertaking then that consideration on Report and Third Reading would fall within a certain time frame, but today's motion goes back on that undertaking.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: Does not it follow that the Minister not only did not listen to representations from NGOs, but that he did not listen to what he said to himself?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The Minister is well meaning, but I am afraid that he gets forced into moving in certain directions. This motion is a case in point. It is reprehensible to timetable the Bill at this stage, and it means that he has gone back on his original promise.
    I am disappointed with the motion for several reasons. As the Minister knows, I disapprove in principle of such motions, and of the way in which they have been used during this Parliament. I shall return to that matter later.

    307
    I am especially disappointed because of what the Minister said in his opening remarks on the first day of our Committee deliberations. He said:
    "The Bill is sizeable, legally complex and technical. Its purpose, as was made clear in the excellent Second Reading debate, is to enable Britain to sign up properly to the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 April 2001; c. 3.]
    The Bill is extremely complex and technical, and requires detailed scrutiny. Consideration in Committee lasted for 25 hours—less the time spent finding a Chairman for one of our sittings—and that allowed us to touch on some of the topics. However, we were not able to touch on all the proposals that might have improved the Bill.

    The Bill was far from perfect, despite a very rapid scrutiny process in another place, and Government amendments had to be tabled. Even after a so-called consultation process, the Bill remained imperfect. Today's programme motion shows how the Government have treated the Bill with disrespect and disregard.
    Mr. Battle: It is worth reminding the House that the Opposition said that four issues should be debated in Committee—the seven-year opt-out, discretion over warrants, command responsibility and declarations on ratification. Only one of those items was not discussed.
    In Committee, our discussion covered subjects as diverse as the European Court of Human Rights, the aggressive situation developing between China and Taiwan, the Lockerbie trial, Diego Garcia, NATO's action in Kosovo, no-fly zones in Iraq, corruption at the Olympics, the politicisation of the ICC, the means of electing ICC personnel, Israel, the Falklands dispute, parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the Pinochet question, peace talks and face-to-face diplomacy, Angola, nuclear weapons and the history of the law of war.
    I should have hoped that that variety of topics might be seen as offering a sufficient range of debate in Committee, but we accept that some matters remain that the Opposition want to raise.
    Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the whole point of this stage of consideration of a Bill is to allow those who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee to contribute to the debate and table amendments, and that to quote what happened in Committee is an utter irrelevance at this stage?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: We are, in fact, discussing a programme motion.
    Mrs. Gillan: The Minister makes my point for me. This is a complex Bill which involves serious issues, not a simple look at a proposed statute. It involves discussing the concepts around the Bill, its implications and outcomes. The Minister's list makes my case that the legislation deserves full scrutiny.
    Mr. Gamier: In his catalogue of matters discussed in Committee, the Minister did not mention the hobby horse that I exercised quite frequently. I refer to the way
    308
    in which Parliament is wholly incapable, under our constitutional arrangements, of amending treaties or gaining any legislative purchase on a treaty that is made by the Government, as the Executive. Other right hon. and hon. Members may not realize that the exercise that we went through in Committee was largely Ruritanian, in that we could achieve very little in persuading the Government that what they may have done in signing up to the treaty was not perfect.
    Will my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) draw to the attention of the House the huge constitutional implications involved in passing the Bill today? We are handing over to an extra-territorial body—not the United Nations or the European Union, but a court—constitutional powers that properly belong to this Chamber.
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. and learned Friend has made valid points that have been repeated at several stages during the Committee's proceedings, and I feel sure that when he moves amendments in his own right from the Front Bench, he will add to them. He is right. We are putting on to the statute book our agreement to a treaty. From debates in Committee, it seems to be a pick-and-mix affair. The Government could pick and choose bits from the treaty that they wanted to include in the legislation and disregard other parts. Those matters deserve a great deal of scrutiny. In considering something that is so long term, with such vast constitutional implications, we owe it to the electorate to do our job properly by scrutinising the Bill and making sure that we have examined everything in detail.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a profound point. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) agree that its significance is heightened by our knowledge that under the Standing Orders of this House, there is a prohibition on the tabling of oral questions that seek Ministers' exegesis of treaty articles? Does that not underline how crucial it is to have adequate time this afternoon for proper consideration, for once this afternoon's opportunity has passed, there might be no other?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It adds weight to the discussions on the programming motion and backs up our objections.
    Some Labour Members have said that our attitude to the Bill means that we are opposed to the International Criminal Court. We are no such thing. Conservative Front-Bench Members have consistently said that they support the principles behind the Bill, and who would not? However, we would be failing in our duty if we did not scrutinise the Bill properly. I think that, in all honesty, the Minister agrees with me on that fundamental point.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gillan: There is not much time on this programme motion, and I know that some of my colleagues wish to speak. I would like to take up some of the points that the Minister made in moving the programming motion. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later.

    309

    Some of the Minister's arguments about the programming of this stage of the Bill are utter rubbish. He says that he wants Britain to be among the first 60 countries to sign up to the statute, so it is desperately important to get the Bill on to the statute book now. If it was so desperately important, why did nothing happen after the Foreign Secretary—who is not in his place—said on 20 July 1998 that we would be among the first 60 countries to ratify the statute? That is an example of the Labour party saying one thing and doing another.
    From 20 July 1998 onwards, the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers could easily have introduced legislation in this House and had a perfectly adequate period of time in which to discuss it. On 27 October 1999—more than a year later—I called for legislation to be brought forward so that the House could do its job properly, scrutinise it over a long period of time and get it right, but I am afraid that nothing happened.
    Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that we allowed, from the outset, a long period of consultation so that all parties could give their views on the Bill?
    Mrs. Gillan: The Minister must have a selective memory. The consultation process on the Bill took place largely during the recess. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary complaining about the short time available. The Government suddenly woke up to the fact that they had done nothing about this, and that it was one of their do-gooding poses.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion before the House is not about consultation but about the programme and the time for consideration.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am sorry if I am stepping outside the bounds of the programming motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Minister raised it on an intervention, and I think it right to put the House straight on the consultation process if he is claiming that it was a contributory factor in cutting short the scrutiny of the Bill at this stage. Despite repeated calls from this side of the House for the legislation to be introduced in short order. nothing happened. There was complete inaction.
    The motion does not surprise me. It fits into the Government's pattern of falling back on what used to be the guillotine and is now the programming process. At this stage of the Parliament, it is worth recalling that in this Session, 22 Bills have been programmed in this House. Only four have not been programmed—three consolidated fund measures, which go through on one day, and a capital allowances measure. The Government are willing to continue to subscribe to the stifling of debate on important matters such as the scrutiny of the Bill without caring a fig. The Minister shakes his head, but he does not care a fig.
    Because Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have spoken on this matter consistently over the past two or three years, have asked for legislation to be introduced, there have been plenty of opportunities for the Minister to discuss it with us and negotiate its passage. Yet the Government brought the Bill forward at the eleventh hour, when they knew full well that they would be calling a general election. It was foot and mouth disease that diverted the date of the election. The Government chose
    310
    to bring the Bill forward in the House of Lords, with the intention that it would receive no scrutiny whatever in this House. It is only by virtue of the great disaster that has befallen our farming industry that the Bill was able to have a Committee stage. The Government's disregard for the legislation is reprehensible.
    The Minister said that Britain needs to be among the first 60 to ratify the statute. This year, only two countries have done so—Andorra and Argentina. One of the reasons for guillotining proceedings on the Bill may be so that we can be among the top 60, but there are still 30 countries to go. Today, I received a read-out showing the rate at which countries are ratifying the treaty: it is not with great rapidity. The Minister cannot, therefore, deploy that argument in his favour at this stage.
    Ann Clwyd: We need an International Criminal Court for the same reason that I have to go to Scotland yard in half an hour to discuss bringing Iraqi war criminals to justice—because no such court is in being. The faster that we can set up the court, the better it will be for the sufferers of torture, of crimes against humanity, of genocide and so on. That is why I urge the hon. Lady to give the Bill full speed.
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is well known for her good work and I hope that her meeting goes well. However, the absence of an International Criminal Court has not prevented criminals from being brought to justice. There were tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The court will be a vehicle whereby people can be brought to justice. Let us face the facts, however: the hon. Lady knows that, given the programme motion and the Government's railroading attitude, of course the measure will be passed. I should like an International Criminal Court—I make no bones about that—but I do not see why I should roll over and accept the Government's imperfect proposals which do not offer the protections needed for our citizens, especially our armed services personnel.
    There is no point in introducing half measures. Once a measure is on the statute book, it is in the statute book, so we have a duty to work on the proposals, in the House, in a timely and proper fashion—not in a rushed way, at the fag end of a Parliament. I hope that the Government are swept from power at the election, that we return to office and can consider the measure properly. We will bring common sense to bear on it.
    Other hon. Members want to speak. I willingly put on record the fact that the programme motion is disgraceful. The Government have constantly eroded democracy and this measure is a flagship for that erosion. The Bill should have been negotiated between the Front Benches and should have been discussed during the body of a Parliament—not slipped in, slyly, at the end. We shall vote against the motion as a protest.
    3.12 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Normally, I am not keen on programme motions; Parliament ought to have the opportunity to discuss legislation in detail. However, it must be obvious, even to Opposition Members, that Parliament is about to be dissolved and that an election is coming—perhaps they have not heard about that—so if the Bill is to become law, it has to go through today. The matter is as simple as that: therefore, there is to be a programme motion.

    311
    I am one of the Labour Back Benchers who has occasionally been forced to raise differences of opinion with Front-Bench Members—my Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is laughing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, he is not!"] Perhaps he is taking notes—no doubt for future commendation—. I have tabled amendments, but I am intrigued by the contribution made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). It is ground-breaking, it is mind-blowing—it is galactic. He seems to be saying that it is time to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, I am delighted and—given the absence, tragically, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the next Parliament—if the hon. and learned Gentleman is re-elected, he and I can no doubt promote a Bill to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny.
    Mr. Garnier: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and I will not often agree. In Standing Committee, I taxed the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) with the issue that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) addresses and mentioned the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is outrageous that Parliament should have no purchase whatever on the treaty-making prerogative of the Government. Earlier in the debate, Labour Members tittered when I used the word "sovereign"; they thought that I was talking about the Queen, but I was talking about this Government. It is essential that a Parliament dominated by the Executive, thanks to their supine majority, should not be allowed to make treaties on behalf of the public without Members of the House of Commons having some say in the matter. At least on this occasion, I am glad to be in some agreement with the hon. Member for Islington, North.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members of the wording of the motion that we are discussing.
    Mr. Corbyn: The problem with the programme motion is that it does not allow sufficient time for the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and me to table motions to bring the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. Had there been sufficient time, we could no doubt have raised that issue.
    The important point is that if a Government—good, bad or indifferent—sign international treaties, a Parliament should have the right to deal with those treaties in detail. We can deal only with consequential legislation, not the substance of the treaties. For an accountable Parliament and for accountable democracy, that issue must be revisited in future Parliaments. That is most important.
    If the Bill is passed today, we shall be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty. That will mean that the court can be established and begin work. I hope that we are among those countries and that the court does start working. I look forward to the Minister's comments, either in response to this short debate or later in the Bill's
    312
    proceedings. I hope that there will be a process whereby we can review the operation of the court, the appointment of its judges—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the wording of the motion.
    Mr. Corbyn: Once again, time is the problem, Madam Deputy Speaker. The programme motion would not allow us to discuss the points I was outlining. However, I am sure that the Minister will want to deal with them.
    Some of the proposals to be debated under the motion relate to the wish—in some cases unstated, although it is more overt in others—that the ICC should apply to everyone except us. The principle of a treaty is that a degree of sovereignty is ceded to another body. I am, therefore, concerned that some of the amendments would increase the discretion available to Ministers, either in this country or elsewhere as to whether to proceed with cases. I wish that there was sufficient time to debate my view: there should be much less discretion, or none whatever. Surely, that is the principle of universal jurisdiction that lies behind the measure.
    We have only a short time to consider eight or nine groups of amendments. I hope that we have time to discuss all of them, but above all, I hope that the measure is passed. It will deal with the difficulties that many of us faced while trying to secure justice in an international tribunal for victims in places where was no special process. There was such a process for Nazi Germany; there is one for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia. However, there was no special process for Chile and Cambodia and in many, many cases throughout the world.
    However serious we are about eliminating the main perpetrators of murder, human rights abuses and terrorism against whole civilian populations, we must acknowledge that the passage of the Bill will not solve all those problems. However, at least it is a step forward and offers a forum in which some of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses can be brought to justice. I hope that we achieve that today.
    3.18 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The position of programme motions in this Parliament has advanced rapidly. I approve of this one. In the light of the imminent election, it is certainly necessary to give effect to the clear will of Parliament—as expressed from the Front Benches—that there should be an International Criminal Court.
    I am glad that the debate has allowed the instructive exchange between the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on the prerogative power. May I please sign up to their club? I wholly endorse what they said and wish only that I could pursue the matter in this place in future. It is entirely desirable that the House should be more involved in the process of making treaties, which have such a significant impact on our country, and there is, I hope, a growing consensus, but that remains to be seen.
    The motion is entirely sensible. It allows reconsideration by all Members of the House of many matters, most of which have already been considered and, I believe, rather well debated at some length in Committee. The Committee

    313
    was also programmed, and that was done with a degree of judgment as to what was required. The Minister was entirely reasonable in drawing attention to the scope of the debates that we had already had in Committee, and to the fact that very little was not considered in Committee that Members would have wished to consider.
    My party has no objection of principle to the programming of debate. I was a member of the Hansard Society committee, which was chaired by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham, that deliberated on reform of the legislative process. I believe that programming allows a more complete and orderly discussion of issues, which safeguards the interests of Back Benchers, provided that programmes take full account of the nature of the discussions and of the variety of matters that it might be important to consider during the later stages of the Bill.
    The only objection that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have to programming is that, as it has been carried out during this Parliament, it has tended to be laid down too early in the legislative process, and not by the Standing Committee following the Second Reading debate, which would be the right time to make such determinations. I hope that the next Parliament will return to that issue, so that the concerns of the hon. Member for Islington, North and others about programming can be taken into account. If, for whatever reason, the Standing Committee cannot reach agreement, the matter might have to return to the Chamber to be determined, but I consider that this has been a reasonable start to the process of trying to order debate to ensure that all the major issues are addressed.
    I fervently believe, as I said in Committee, that it is crucial that the Bill passes. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seems to give her support to the doctrine of unripe time. She seems to be saying that although in principle she favours the establishment of the court, it is not the right time for us to ratify the statute. Would she regard it as the right time for us to do so when 60 other countries have already set the processes in concrete, which would exclude us from participation in the choice of the judges operating in the court?
    Mrs. Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman is putting in my mouth words that I never said—in fact, I have said the reverse. I have said that if the Minister is trying to justify the programme motion with the lame excuse that we need to be in the first 60 countries to ratify, it is worth remembering that only two countries have ratified this year, bringing us up to a total of 30, and that there is plenty of time, as far as I know, to be in the first 60 but to give this legislation proper scrutiny in the middle of a decent Parliament, when it is not being rushed through with undue haste.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady begs a great many questions in talking about the amount of time that is required. I do not know whether she has considered what is going on in the legislative and ratification processes of all the other countries. She might be right that it will take a little time for a sufficient number of members to ratify the treaty, but I would not wish to leave such a matter to chance, and it is very important that this country gives a lead. It is important not only for us to be among those countries that can influence the operation of the court,
    314
    its structure, its rules of procedure and the like, but for us to give a lead to other countries that might, for unsuitable reasons, be delaying ratification of the treaty.
    I commend the Government for their handling of the Bill. The Minister has been extremely sympathetic in his handling of interventions and amendments. He has shown not merely tolerance of arguments, including some that I have made at some length, but a genuine sympathy for the process of deliberation. It is a travesty of what happened in Committee to suggest that he and the Government have been unsuitably precipitate in their handling of the Bill. The reverse is the case, as will be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read the record. I have no doubt that those NGOs that were spoken of with a certain disfavour by one Conservative Back Bencher earlier will at least read Hansard. They will know that there has been suitable deliberation, and that although the one issue on which uncertainty remains—universal jurisdiction—has had to be temporarily shelved, that shelving was not the result of any failure by the Government to provide enough time to debate it.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is being much too generous to the Government, given the timing of the presentation of the Bill to the House of Commons. In the first instance, the Bill was never expected to reach the stage that it has reached, because it would have been lost had there been a 3 May election. The fact that it has been timetabled now to complete proceedings before we dissolve means that the Government cannot accept amendments, however good the arguments adduced in their favour by the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of us in Committee or, indeed, now; otherwise, the Bill will not become law. That is why the timetable motion is a disgrace, and does dishonour to so important an issue.
    Mr. Maclennan: It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to indulge in such hyperbole. There has been a great deal of time to consider all the issues that were before the Committee, and many of them were considered in another place before they were raised by us in Committee. The Government have decided, in the last analysis, to stand, not on the issue of time, but on what they have decided is appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with the Government on universal jurisdiction, but even on that issue it has not been lack of time that has caused the Government to end the discussions. They have done so because they believe that they are right, and, to be candid, they are entitled to do so; they have at this time a majority.
    I hope that, in the limited time that is available to us to consider these matters, we shall not indulge in criticism of the procedures. It will be more interesting to revert, as soon as possible, to the issue of substance, while recognising that the paramount interest of this country in today's proceedings is implementation of the Bill, to enable us to give effect in our domestic law to the provisions that have already been agreed by our signature to the statute of Rome.
    3.28 pm
    Mr. Mike Gapes: I will not delay the House long, but it is important to place on the record from the Labour Back Benches, from someone who served on the Committee, my belief that we had an excellent debate in Committee and covered a wide range of areas.

    315
    It is somewhat duplicitous or hypocritical for the Opposition to advance arguments that imply that although they allegedly support the Bill, they are voting against the programme motion. It is not yet clear to me whether they will vote against Third Reading, but it was suggested in Committee by at least one Opposition Member that they would vote against the Bill if amendments were not agreed. Perhaps the modern Conservative party, in which the Back-Bench tail wags the dog, is in fact a kind of Leninist party—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion on the Order Paper is a programme motion.
    Mr. Gapes: The Conservative party supports the Bill but opposes the programme motion, like a rope supporting a hanging man.
    The Bill meets many of the aims that the Conservative party claimed that it wanted to achieve. We had extensive debate in Committee. The programme motion gives us the chance to get the legislation through the House today. If we cannot do so, the Bill will not receive Royal Assent before the election, and it will be lost.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gapes: No. The hon. Lady did not give way to me, so I see no reason why I should give way to her.
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.
    Mr. Gapes: The hon. Lady may think that, but perhaps she is referring to what is inside her head.
    If the Bill falls, it will not be easy to reintroduce it quickly. It would again have to go through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament following the election on 7 June. Given the amount of time that the Opposition would no doubt want to discuss all the clauses and their amendments, we would have to spend several weeks more debating the same issues and making the same arguments as those we advanced extensively in Committee—whether it be the Conservative party's friendship with General Pinochet, the situation in Serbia or the problem of international jurisdiction.
    We would not be able to complete all stages until the end of July, or even October or November. There would be no guarantee that this country would be one of the first 60 to pass such legislation. Therefore, we would not be one of the most influential countries in the International Criminal Court. For those reasons, we must vote for the programme motion and conclude business on the Bill today.
    3.32 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The Government must be delighted to have such subservient minions as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who has just addressed the House with such conspicuous lack of articulate sense.
    I oppose the programme motion not because I am against the concept of an international court; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham
    316
    (Mrs. Gillan) on the Front Bench. However, it is ludicrous to rush through a Bill that is supported in principle on both sides of the House. As there is a commitment to such legislation on both sides of the House, it matters not who forms the Government after the election—although it matters very much from other points of view. All we need is a commitment to putting the matter near the beginning of the Queen's Speech and to getting a Bill through the House. Any Member who is concerned with these issues—some of us have not had the benefit of serving on the Committee—must know that they are of great complexity and far-reaching importance and that it is crucial that we get the legislation right.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry, but I do not have the time to do so.
    In rushing the Bill through the House, there is a danger of our creating bad law. I want to say that, above all, that is symptomatic of the Government's steamroller approach, to which we have become increasingly accustomed during this Session of this very subservient Parliament, in which those in serried ranks behind the Government have supported whatever the Government have said and have been prepared to do whatever the Government have wanted them to do.
    Mr. Bercow: Craven lickspittles.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says, with his normal self-effacing modesty, they are craven lickspittles—but far be it from me to use such appalling jargon.
    The Government have been able to do whatever they have wanted because of their huge majority. The electorate ought to have regard to that, as should Labour Members. None of us knows the result of the election. Many think that they know, but no Member in this Chamber does know. There will be a time—[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would stop behaving in such an unministerial manner, by sitting on the Front Bench making silly interventions.
    Mr. Gapes rose—
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
    Sooner or later—it could well be 8 June—Labour Members will find themselves on the Opposition Benches, and will not want legislation to be steamrollered through as it has been—
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
    Question put:—
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 238, Noes 90.

    Division no. 208]

    [3.36 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Doran, Frank

    Allan, Richard

    Dowd, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Edwards, Huw

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Efford, Clive

    Ashton, Joe

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Ennis, Jeff

    Austin, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Bailey, Adrian

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Banks, Tony

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Flint, Caroline

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Fyfe, Maria

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gapes, Mike

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Benton, Joe

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Goggins, Paul

    Berry, Roger

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Betts, Clive

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Hain, Peter

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Hanson, David

    Browne, Desmond

    Harvey, Nick

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Healey, John

    Burden, Richard

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Hendrick, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Heppell, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Caton, Martin

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Chaytor, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Church, Ms Judith

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hutton, John

    Clelland, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Clwyd, Ann

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Colman, Tony

    Jamieson, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Corston, Jean

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Cotter, Brian

    Joyce, Eric

    Cousins, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cox, Tom

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cranston, Ross

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Cummings, John

    Kemp, Fraser

    Darvill, Keith

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Kifoyle, Peter

    Davidson, Ian

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lammy, David

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    McAllion, John

    Dobbin, Jim

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    McCabe, Steve

    318

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McDonnell, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McFall, John

    Roy, Frank

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McNamara, Kevin

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McNulty, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McWilliam, John

    Soley, Clive

    Mallaber, Judy

    Spellar, John

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stevenson, George

    Martlew, Eric

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Maxton, John

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Stringer, Graham

    Merron, Gillian

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Timms, Stephen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Todd, Mark

    Touhig, Don

    Mullin, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Tyler, Paul

    Olner, Bill

    Tynan, Bill

    O'Neill, Martin

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pearson, Ian

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pike, Peter L

    Watts, David

    Pond, Chris

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Pope, Greg

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pound, Stephen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wills, Michael

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Winnick, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Worthington, Tony

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Rogers, Allan

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Duncan, Alan

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Fabricant Michael

    Bercow, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Blunt, Crispin

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Brazier, Julian

    Fraser, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Butterfill, John

    Gibb, Nick

    Cash, William

    Gill, Christopher

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Chope, Christopher

    Green, Damian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Greenway, John

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Grieve, Dominic

    Collins, Tim

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hammond, Philip

    Cran, James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Hayes, John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Heald, Oliver

    Day, Stephen

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    319

    Horam, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Johnson Smith,

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Key, Robert

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spring, Richard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Swayne, Desmond

    Leigh, Edward

    Syms, Robert

    Letwin, Oliver

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Townend, John

    Lidington, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Trend, Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wells, Bowen

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Whittingdale, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Wilkinson, John

    Madel, Sir David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Maples, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ottaway, Richard

    Mr. Peter Luff and

    Paice, James

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      AMENDMENTS OF THE ICC STATUTE
      `If an amendment is adopted to the ICC Statute under Article 121, within six months of the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties which adopts such amendment Her Majesty's Government shall obtain approval for such amendment by positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament, failing such approval being given six months after the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties Her Majesty's Government will give notice for withdrawal under Article 127.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.53 pm
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 2. We discussed it in Committee, but I chose to withdraw it so that we could return to it on Report. It deals with immensely important principles, to which we referred in the debate on the programme motion, despite Madam Deputy Speaker's energetic efforts to stop us. We are especially concerned about the ability of Parliament to oversee the Executive and the way in which it can—or cannot—control the royal prerogative power of treaty making. An interesting alliance was formed in the earlier debate between the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), all of whom identified the need to implement the principle that is at the heart of the new clause, which would give more power to Parliament to oversee the Executive.
      The new clause also goes to the heart of the Rome statute and the problems that are inherent in it, which the Opposition tried to correct in Committee.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman knows my opinions on the royal prerogative. Will he make it clear that the purpose of the new clause is to strengthen the Bill, not to impede it? He appears to be saying that if any change is made to the ICC statute, that should be discussed by us. Is that over and above what is in the Bill, or is he making a genuine attempt to ensure parliamentary accountability?
      Mr. Blunt: I am happy to allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns. This is a genuine attempt to increase the accountability of the Executive. It is possible to make substantial changes to the statute after we have concluded our proceedings and, unless we accept the new clause, we will have no means of bringing the Executive to account.
      The hon. Gentleman will notice that the new clause refers specifically to article 121, which is the mechanism in the Rome statute by which amendments can be made. I have tabled it because I am concerned about the fault lines in the statute, which the article identifies. We have signed up to the statute, and it is possible that France will do the same. However, Her Majesty's Government have negotiated our proceedings in such a way that it is difficult to believe that other major countries, such as China,

      321
      Russia, India and the United States of America, will also sign up. That is because the statute grants power on a nation-by-nation basis. There is no recognition of the contribution that each nation makes to world security or of the balance of influence in the world.
      The statute sets out the majority that is needed for it to be amended. Fundamental amendments to the list of crimes will require a seven eighths majority of the states party to the statute to agree. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that even if the statute is amended fundamentally by changing articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, seven eighths of the countries representing 1.1 billion people could outvote the countries representing 3.8 billion people, if China and India accede. Governments who represent more than three quarters of the world's population could be outvoted on the most fundamental changes.
      In Committee, the Solicitor-General made it clear that if changes arise from a seven eights majority under article 121, they would have to be implemented in primary legislation because they would change the nature of what constitutes a crime in English law. I acknowledge that. However, he was not clear about changes to the way in which the court will be administered, which could be fundamental to its procedures and how it pursues those people whom it identifies as criminals.
      We spent much time in Committee discussing the possibility of the ICC trying to bring British citizens to justice when the United Kingdom has decided that they have no case to answer. That could happen. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North would say that that is appropriate because that is what the ICC is for. If individual nations seek to defend citizens in the event that they have committed a crime as decided by the ICC, those people should be brought to justice. If we in the United Kingdom decided that there was no case to bring against a British subject but there was still a warrant for their arrest and a desire to bring them to trial at the ICC, there would be a crisis between the UK and the ICC.
      4 pm
      The way in which the court will operate, how individuals are elected to various positions and how the pre-trial chamber will work are matters that are contained in the detail of the statute, which can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the states parties. A collection of small countries representing a small fraction of the world's population could outvote the larger countries and a substantial majority of the world's population. In those terms, the figures become even more dramatic.
      The interests of the large states have not been represented or protected in the statute, and a mechanism should have been found to enable that to happen. That is why, sadly, the large states are unlikely to ratify the treaty. In the end, that will be calamitous to the prospect of the ICC becoming the successful institution that I believe right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want it to be.
      The purpose of the new clause is to enable Parliament to have the opportunity, every time an amendment is agreed to the ICC statute under article 121, to consider it within six months. The Government would have to obtain the positive approval of both Houses. That is not a substantial parliamentary burden to place upon the Executive. A simple motion would have to be passed in
      322
      each place. The clause does not provide that the procedure should be by way of positive resolution. It would impose a limited burden on the Executive in terms of parliamentary time.
      Given that changes to the statute could be fundamental to the way in which the ICC works, the clause should commend itself to the House. The principle behind it appears to have the commendation of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North when we were debating the programme motion. In Committee, the Solicitor-General chose not to oppose my point in principle. He said:
      "There is still a possibility for Parliament to examine other changes and express its views."
      That adduces the Ponsonby report.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman added:
      "Perhaps parliamentary procedure rules need to be changed; that is a matter to which we are alive and are happy to consider, but in a different context."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 May 2001; c. 276.]
      As the position in principle has been conceded by implication by the Solicitor-General in Committee, and given the view that has been expressed across the philosophical divide in the House about the necessity for Parliament to take greater power over the Executive's exercise of royal prerogative powers in this respect, the clause should commend itself to the House, and I hope that it will.
      Mr. Edward Gander: I support the new clause because it allows us to consider the huge constitutional implications that lie behind the Government's prerogative powers, which they hold in trust for the sovereign, in the making of treaties.
      In Committee, I complained on several occasions—no doubt to the great inconvenience and boredom of other members—that we could amend the Bill, subject to the arithmetic of Committee membership, but we could gain no purchase on the statute of Rome. All three parties represented in Committee agreed that the ICC was an aim worthy of achievement. However, we did not agree with the detail of the statute of Rome—the treaty that we were signing up to—in every respect. We had fundamental concerns, not least about the protection of our armed forces and our military and political commanders if the statute of Rome were to be ratified.
      The clause highlights the absence of connection between the Chamber and the Government, which is the sovereign. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when we were debating the programme motion, by means of the statute of Rome we are handing over powers to an extra-territorial body. We are not handing the powers of our citizens, which we hold in trust for them, to an extra-governmental body such as the United Nations or the European Union. They are being handed to a court. Once the court is set up after ratification by 60 states, Parliament will have little influence over it, except in the most indirect way.
      I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for reintroducing the debate at the 59th minute of the 11th hour of this Parliament. I am not necessarily wedded to the exact detail of his scheme, but that does not matter. Other schemes have been suggested.

      323
      In the other place in the early part of the year, Lord Lester of Herne Hill mentioned referring treaties to Select Committees of the other place. He talked about the Ponsonby rule and about the Conservative Administration publishing impact statements for the consideration of Parliament on the effect of treaties upon the UK. However, none of the schemes that we have so far discussed allows in any real way for the elected Members of this place to have any control over how the sovereign power of exercising the prerogative is dealt with by the Government.
      For once, I do not attack the motives of Ministers. They have plenty to be embarrassed about, but their motives in wanting the ICC to come into existence are of the finest. However, they appear to forget the constitutional issues that underlie the making of treaties, and the handing over of Parliament's powers and government to extra-territorial bodies, which must necessarily follow, is something that we ignore at our peril.
      I may be wrong, but I suspect that until those matters came to be discussed in Committee, many Labour Members who served in Committee, and certainly many Members who were not on it, had no idea that they had no purchase on the treaty.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: I did.
      Mr. Garnier: Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows everything. He showed us that in Committee. I am grateful for his attendance and his contributions. He adorned our debates in every sense, but he was unusual. There are many Members—this is not a party political point—who are not aware of the constitutional arrangements and are happy to troop sheep-like through the Lobby at the behest of the Government Whips, little realising that they will be handing over to extra-territorial bodies huge powers that they will never be able to recover.
      We are sent here by the electorate to represent their interests. I suspect that they do not send us here—I know that this is the position in my case—to give the Government huge powers to hand over our responsibilities to extra-territorial bodies. That simple point is often missed and I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for providing an opportunity to debate it.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for returning to the matter on the Floor of the House, not because I would like his new clause to be accepted or the progress of the Bill impeded in any way, but because parliamentary deliberation on treaties is an important constitutional issue that deserves wider and more extensive scrutiny in the post-election period.
      Apropos of the new clause, I recall an incident in the development of our constitutional processes in Scotland. A certain lady became a lady licentiate of St. Andrews university. She was one of its first female graduates and, as such, she claimed the right to enjoy the franchise to vote for the university Member of Parliament. Had she
      324
      been conceded that right, she would have been the first woman in the United Kingdom to have access to the vote. However, when the matter came before the court, her claim was overruled and the judge said that the constitution of our country could not be changed by a side wind.
      As we were not able to extend the franchise to ladies through that adventurous episode in the Scottish courts, I suspect that it would be unlikely that we will be able to change the constitution on treaty making by assenting to the new clause—[Interruption.] That is not to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Reigate or undermine the constitutional fact that Parliament can do what it likes with respect to legislation. None the less, on an issue of such importance, it would be more sensible to have a little time to deliberate on the implementation of the underlying principle of parliamentary involvement in treaty making, and review alternative ways of doing that. It is not necessarily the fact that we want to give Parliament the automatic power to dispense with a treaty obligation in defiance of the wishes of the Government of the day.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about wider constitutional questions and asked for a little time to consider them. I remind him and the House that, under the terms of the statute of Rome, there is all the time in the world. It prescribes that there shall be no amendments until seven years after it comes into force, and it is unlikely to do so for another year. In other words, we have eight years before we are faced with the first amendment, which is two full Parliaments—a long enough time, I should have thought, to have a leisurely debate on the constitutional principle that we are discussing.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary and delighted that he feels that degree of urgency about effecting change in the processes of which he has given notice; I hope that what he implies is justified.
      Mr. Garnier: What the Foreign Secretary said is true, as it appears in article 121 of the treaty of Rome. However, the serious point is that, in that eight-year period, the House can do nothing about the matter. My complaint is that the House of Commons has no influence whatever on the making or suggestion of any amendments to the treaty.
      Mr. Maclennan: If I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, he was making the point that, under the statute. the process for making amendments cannot become operative within seven years. That is certainly long enough to make changes to our domestic procedures to allow effective scrutiny and involvement of the House of Commons and, perhaps, of another place, in the processes of treaty making. I put it no more strongly than that; I am not entirely certain about the matter and would like to have a genuine national debate about whether we want to take away from the Executive the last word in such a matter. However, it is useful to debate the subject, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Reigate has tabled the new clause.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief, as an awful lot of amendments have been tabled; I hope that there will be time to debate them this afternoon.
      I have my doubts about the new clause, but I do not doubt the motive of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in tabling it. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, there cannot be any amendments until seven years after, I assume, the first 60 ratifications, which will make the treaty operational. As he said, there will probably be eight years until anything can happen, so there will be plenty of opportunities in the House during that period to consider any mechanism for reporting and reviewing the way in which amendments should operate.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that the way in which the royal prerogative operates in treaty making is important. A central deficit of British constitutional arrangements is the fact that the Executive have always had much more power in international affairs than Parliament. We can legislate and vote only on consequential matters or have a vote of confidence in the Government, which are fairly blunt instruments for dealing with international affairs. There is no mechanism for dealing in a detailed way with the Executive's treaty making. A new Parliament will provide a good opportunity to review that.
      When the Minister replies, will he comment on the reporting of what British representatives do in international organisations? There are many international forums, such as the United Nations and various UN and UN-related bodies, including the International Labour Organisation, the Human Rights Commission and many others, in which British representatives participate in debates and resolutions and agree decisions. At the end of the day, those things are fairly open, but there is no proper mechanism for reporting to the House—other than on the most dramatic events—what British representatives do. Are review ought to say that there should be a method of parliamentary scrutiny and, possibly, parliamentary involvement in such matters. It is all a question of how accountable we make the Executive in international matters.
      When the Bill is enacted, we will cede quite a lot to an international court. Frankly, I wish that we were ceding more because there are weaknesses in the Bill, which I have tried to address in a couple of amendments. Generally speaking, we are establishing the principle of an international body to deal with criminals, or potential criminals, in a way that has not been possible so far unless, as I mentioned earlier, a special process was established, such as that for dealing with the situation in Germany, Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. There is a case for setting up such a body, and I hope that we agree to it. However, I suspect that, in his new clause, the hon. Member for Reigate is confusing two different things. He is saying that there should be more scrutiny—I agree with that—but he is also saying that matters should come back to Parliament if there is going to be any change in statute. There will be no change in the statute for the first seven years of the treaty becoming operational, so there will be plenty of opportunity to deal with that issue anyway.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is perfectly proper for us to discuss the principles and practice of parliamentary deliberation on treaties on the Floor of the House. That is a good and important debate, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) said frequently in Committee. This afternoon, there has been consensus that we should address that theme. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has participated actively in discussion of the Bill to the last moments of his time as a Member of Parliament, and leaves a large challenge to the House to address those matters in a timely way in future.
      I want to argue that it may not be proper to use the Bill to change our procedures for scrutinising treaties in the House; the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for that. The process of scrutiny is a significant question that comes within the ambit of discussion of the Bill. However, the Bill's aim and purpose is to allow us to ratify the statute of Rome and sign up to the International Criminal Court. The new clause is unnecessary, not simply because of the question of time, of which we are well aware, but because amendments to the statue will come before Parliament in the normal course of events. They will come before Parliament in two ways: there will be amendments that require implementation in domestic law, as the statute itself does—for example, on new crimes—or there will be technical changes that do not require primary legislation, but which will still be considered by Parliament before the Government accept them.
      The Committee agreed that we should not use the Bill to introduce back-door legislation, and that the Bill should not be a vehicle for redefining criminal law or our criminal court procedure. It would therefore be inappropriate for the new clause to be written into the Bill to shift us in that direction.
      Amendments to the statute already fall within the scope of parliamentary procedures for scrutiny, including the Ponsonby rule whereby they must lie before Parliament for 21 days before acceptance. Parliament would have time to debate any issues arising. All treaties and amendments not requiring legislative changes are subject to ministerial accountability to Parliament in exactly the same way as other areas of policy. It is not as though there is no scrutiny; the question is whether there is appropriate scrutiny. That is the larger question. I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on this subject on 13 July 2000. On that occasion I emphasised that the Government remain open to considering ways of contributing to efficient and effective scrutiny of treaties.
      The new clause refers to article 121 of the statute, which provides for changes to the statute only when they are accepted by seven eighths of state parties. That is a high threshold, in addition to the time constraint and the fact that there would be no amendments for seven years. In the light of the discussion, which can be continued more appropriately elsewhere in the House, I ask the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Blunt: I listened to the Minister, who finished by referring to the threshold of seven eighths. I might point out to him that the threshold is one quarter of the world's population, as represented by its states, so the threshold is not quite as high as he implies.

      327
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for explaining the origin of the expression "side wind", which featured in our discussion in Committee. He pointed out, when I muttered at him from a sedentary position, that the court cannot change our constitution, but of course Parliament can. If we chose to do so, there is no reason why we could not change the Bill.
      The Foreign Secretary said that we had plenty of time—eight years. I got the impression that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) agreed with him in that respect. We may have eight years in which to come to grips with the matter, but I would not mind making a small wager with both the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Islington, North that in eight years, when amendments under articles 121 and 122 take effect, we will not be very much further forward in the way in which Parliament examines treaties.
      I have listened to the Minister's arguments. I hope that the discussion of the new clause has triggered a wider debate on the issue, and I hope that when we have a Conservative Foreign Secretary and Minister in a few weeks, they will contribute to a discussion about how Parliament will oversee the Executive with respect to treaties. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
      '. This Act shall have effect, subject to the making of a declaration by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with Article 124 of the ICC Statute, with the proviso that for a period of seven years after the entry into force of the Statute the United Kingdom does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in Article 8 when such crimes are alleged to have been committed by United Kingdom nationals or on United Kingdom territory.'.—(Mr. Maude.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 7—Ratification: reservations and declarations—
      'The Secretary of State shall not ratify the ICC Statute unless
      (a) a report is laid before Parliament, setting out

      (i) any reservations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for those reservations,

      (ii) any declarations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for such declarations, and

      (iii) that report is approved by each House of Parliament.'.

      Mr. Maude: New clause 3 would delay implementation of the Act until the Government exercise the seven-year opt-out which is provided for in article 124 of the Rome statute. This important matter was discussed in Committee. Throughout the deliberations on the Bill, both in the House and in the other place, the Government have singularly failed to answer adequately the Opposition's concerns.
      328
      We have said many times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said two years ago in response to the Foreign Secretary's original statement on the matter, that we support the principle of setting up the International Criminal Court. Nothing that we say in any way resiles from that. However, there are genuine concerns about the way in which the Bill will be implemented. Its implications must be properly probed and examined. As we said on Second Reading, we expect some changes to the Bill if it is to have our support.
      The seven-year opt-out, which has already been exercised by the Frech Government, is a means of giving time to see how the court progresses. At the same time, it ensures that members of the armed forces are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Court for the offence of war crimes. Any number of soothing words have issued from the mouths of Ministers to allay the concerns that have been expressed, but none have been convincing. That is why we urge the House to adopt the new clause.
      Our principal concern is the danger to members of the armed forces and the implications for the way they would have to operate—the constraints under which they would feel compelled to operate in circumstances which, as we all know, are already extraordinarily difficult. The Government have not given a satisfactory reason why they will not seek such a seven-year opt-out in the same way as France has. They have not said why they prefer other countries not to do so, or why France is fundamentally different from Britain and why, in their view, members of the British armed services should be subject to a lesser degree of protection than members of the French armed services.
      New clause 7 relates to the declarations that we hope the Government will make on the statute of Rome and the reason for those declarations. It would mean that the Rome statute would not be ratified unless a report were laid before the House setting out those declarations and the reasons for them, any exceptions that the Government proposed to make and the reasons for them, and the approval of each House of Parliament was secured for such a report.
      With the continuing uncertainty in respect of the protection of the armed forces, it is particularly important that Parliament should know what declarations will be made. As we have made clear, France has made such declarations, which seek to protect its armed forces; so has Israel. There is no question of those two Governments being opposed to the court in principle. As one of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, Israel has been a long-time proponent of the idea of an international criminal court. If such states as Israel and France have such concerns, it is incumbent on the Government to tell us how they will protect our armed forces.
      The concerns that have been expressed on a number of occasions have not been met. Those concerns began to emerge in reports to the newspapers some time before the Bill was introduced in this House, but after it had been introduced in the other place and proceedings there were under way. The reports, which looked like unattributable briefing from senior members of the armed forces, were raised in Committee in the other place. The Minister dealing with the Bill in the House of Lords said that there was nothing to worry about, that no representations had been made and that everyone in the armed services,

      329
      including all the senior officers, were completely happy about the matter. It turned out that that was not the case.
      4.30 pm
      I return to the points that we made on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. Our concerns arose during the deliberations of the Select Committee that was established to consider not the Bill before us, but the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee took evidence from the new Chief of the Defence Staff, who was also asked about this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said:
      "Let me ask you about another piece of prospective legislation, because it is very important for this House to get the best military advice before we legislate. Do you have any concerns about the potential impact of our ratification of the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court on military morale or operational effectiveness?"
      I would add in parenthesis that the point about operational effectiveness is intensely important. The Chief of the Defence Staff gave a significant answer on which we should reflect carefully before we allow the Bill to proceed to its final stages:
      "I do know a bit about this Bill, and I think that we need to be very careful indeed that when the Bill is taken through Parliament, we do not put ourselves in a situation where a junior person carrying out orders which he believes to be entirely proper can subsequently find himself in front of the International Criminal Court. So far, I have been told that this is unlikely to happen, because the national court would have the opportunity to investigate the case if it were pointed in that direction by the ICC."
      My hon. Friend went on to ask the Chief of the Defence Staff the following question:
      "Is it good enough to hear that it is 'unlikely to happen', or would you prefer to have a more concrete exemption or derogation or protection in law?"
      In response, Admiral—
      Mr. Ganier: Admirable.
      Mr. Maude: As my hon. and learned Friend says, he is also admirable. Admiral Boyce replied:
      "I cannot say that 'unlikely' fills me with huge confidence. I would be much happier with a completely unequivocal statement, but I guess that is probably the best I will get."
      Clearly, the new Chief of the Defence Staff has got the measure of this Government pretty quickly, if he realises that an equivocal statement is the best that he is likely to get.
      The men and women in the armed services, who come under the leadership of the Chief of the Defence staff—and the political leadership of Ministers in Her Majesty's Government—are entitled to something better than an equivocal statement. They are entitled to some real reassurance. When we probed the matter on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary did his best to be reassuring, but I regret to say that he failed to allay our concerns. He could say only that it would not happen in practice. He would not say that members of the armed forces could not in practice find themselves pursued by the International Criminal Court, perhaps on the basis of a political vendetta by other countries that have grudges to settle. He could not say that it was impossible for that to happen.
      330
      I asked the Foreign Secretary why he could not accept the sort of proposals that we were putting forward if he was as confident as he was encouraging us to be and knew that our concerns were unrealistic. We seek only to provide the protection in absolutely concrete terms, in statutory form. That could be achieved not only through the opt-out provision, which would enable us to see how the International Criminal Court works in its important stages, but also by the introduction of subsequent amendments that we have tabled in relation to enabling the Secretary of State to exercise discretion. All those proposals would provide reassurance and protection for members of the armed services. I consider it a matter of regret that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have been unwilling to show any flexibility whatever on the matter.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statement that it would not happen in practice was not mine. I quoted the words to correct him, as he had quoted Geoffrey Robertson QC as saying that there was a theoretical possibility. I reminded him that it was my hon. Friend who went on to say that it would not happen in practice. In my speech, I said that British service personnel would never be prosecuted, as we could pursue any bona fide allegation ourselves. There is no prospect of the sort of mischievous prosecution by a malign state to which he referred, because of the pre-trial procedure. I remind him of the words of the Opposition spokesperson in the House of Lords, Lord Kingsland, who said:
      "It is … a great achievement to have put in place a pre-trial inquiry to wash out of the system any bogus allegations."
      It is time that the Opposition gave up arousing—in their own way, mischievous—fears about an outcome that will never happen.
      Mr. Maude: Two points arise from those comments. First, it is extremely patronising of the Foreign Secretary to speak in that way about the concerns expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff—[Interruption.] He says that we are raising unjustified fears, but we did not speak to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who came to his own conclusions about his concerns about the armed forces, for which he has to provide the military leadership. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Chief of the Defence Staff is so weak and vulnerable that he will be taken in by scurrilous remarks made by the Opposition, he should bear it in mind that he is referring to a serious leader who must make his own judgments. The judgment that the Chief of the Defence Staff has made is that he is not satisfied with what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are saying. That is what he said when he was asked about the matter in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.
      Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Chief of the Defence Staff said no such thing; neither could he possibly have said anything other than what I said on Second Reading, because the remarks with which the right hon. Gentleman is regaling the House at length—I think that he is doing so for the second time—were made before Second Reading and before I gave an unequivocal assurance.
      Mr. Maude: I made it clear at the outset that the exchange from which I have quoted extensively occurred

      331
      while the Bill was being considered in the other place. The concerns began to arise while the Bill was emerging from the other place and was in transit to this House. We were then able to raise the matter when the Bill was considered on Second Reading. It is remarkable that the reassurance that the Chief of Defence Staff needs has been provided by comments made by the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber. We were told that no concerns at all were expressed by senior members of the military or of the naval staff, but it turned out that that was not the case. At the time when the assurances were first made by Baroness Scotland in the other place, the Chief of the Defence Staff had already expressed the concerns in a House of Commons Select Committee, but the proceedings had not been reported at that stage.
      My second point in response to the Foreign Secretary is that it is precisely allegations that are not well founded or based on bona fide cases about which we are concerned. Of course, we hope that a proper system of pre-trial review will weed out vexatious claims, but he cannot say with absolute confidence that it is impossible that any member of the British armed forces will ever find himself subject to the international jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because the case will have been dealt with in international courts.
      Mr. Battle: He will be charged by the national courts first.
      Mr. Maude: I am not concerned about genuine cases, and I fully accept the Minister of State's remarks in that respect. Of course, the person would be charged by the national courts first in all such cases, but I am anxious about cases in which the national prosecuting authorities—whether military or civil—have already investigated a case and decided that no proper proceedings can be brought, but in which politically motivated proceedings—
      Mr. Robin Cook indicated dissent.
      Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary shakes his head and says that everything is fine, but it is not because that is not the end of the matter. It remains possible. Of course, if the matter has been adjudicated in the national courts, that is the end of it, but if the authorities have considered it and decided not to proceed in the national courts, it is still open to the ICC, as I understand it, to bring proceedings.
      If the Foreign Secretary is so confident that it is completely impossible for those circumstances to arise, let him accept our amendments. They provide for a discretion to be exercised so that there is a watertight cut-out which enables Ministers who are confident that a case is completely vexatious to ensure that such a warrant is not executed against a member of the British armed forces. If he is so confident that the current system allows for that, let him provide for it in the Bill. Members of the armed forces are likely to place a great deal more reliance on something that is definitively enacted in statute than on his assurances.
      Mr. Browne: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how his proposed new clause would achieve
      332
      the level of reassurance for our armed forces that he seeks to give them? I do not support it. Any reservation made in terms of article 124 would relate only to crimes under article 8. Our soldiers will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the court under articles 5 and 6. There is no mechanism for reserving our position in relation to the jurisdiction there. The Foreign Secretary cannot therefore use any word other than "unlikely" himself when he gives the reassurance, even if the amendment is passed.
      Mr. Maude: The main reason for new clause 3, which would provide for the seven-year opt-out, is that we think that it the best way of providing protection—
      Mr. Browne: It is not watertight.
      Mr. Maude: It is watertight in terms of protection for our armed forces. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mutters from a sedentary position—
      Mr. Browne: I will clarify the intervention. The ICC will still exercise jurisdiction over our nationals or in respect of crimes committed on our territory in relation to articles 6 and 7. There may be allegations that such crimes have been committed by members of our armed forces. Any reservations under article 124 will not refer to them, so we will still have to rely on the bona fides of the prosecution and the court to give our armed forces the protection that they need. It is better that we are in there, ensuring that that happens from the outset, than that we have half a solution.
      Mr. Maude: The Government of France sought protection because they are as concerned as we are about the jeopardy in which their armed forces may be placed by the treaty as it stands. Their declaration under the treaty is:
      "The French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory."
      They may have used a completely worthless form of words, but clearly the French Government concluded that a declaration along those lines would give their armed forces the protection that they require. It is odd that the British Government should be so relaxed about this that they are not concerned to give British armed forces the same protection.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Mark Hendrick: If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to get immunity for British military personnel and, to folow that logic, every other signatory to the treaty of Rome in a similar position, would it not be the case that the ICC could not prosecute military personnel per se? Indeed, none of the crimes listed under article 8 could be brought to prosecution by the ICC.
      Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary is trying to assure the House that there is no question of British armed service men ever being subject to the ICC in any event. All I am trying to do is to give legal effect through the statute to the Foreign Secretary's solemn declarations

      333
      made in this House. If he is prepared to be so definitive about it here, why is he not prepared o provide an equally definitive protection to the armed forces in the statute?
      Mr. Corbyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman make absolutely clear whether his position is that the armed forces in general should be exempt from provisions in this statute?
      Mr. Maude: I believe that the British armed forces should be exempt.
      Mr. Corbyn: Why?
      Mr. Maude: In the absence of genuine immunity, the armed forces will find their military efficiency, morale and ability to be operationally effective seriously inhibited. There will always be the anxiety that they will be second-guessed subsequently by those who are not in a military environment and do not understand the pressures under which they have been working. Those are precisely the concerns expressed by a number of senior military officers. In the heat of battle with battlefield decisions to be made, officers try to the best of their ability to interpret and give effect to the rules of engagement under which they are operating. Just the thought of any risk of subsequent second-guessing may inhibit, and affect adversely, their military effectiveness. The result of damaging military effectiveness is lives put in danger. We think that that matters.
      Mr. Robin Cook: Since the right hon. Gentleman appears to be labouring under a misunderstanding, may I assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that creates an offence that does not already exist in international law and to which British service personnel are not already liable and committed? It is fully reflected in their training. There is no evidence that that has reduced their operational capability. May I remind him that he was part of a Government who set up the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia?
      Mr. Maude: I was not.
      Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was not, but we can take it that he was at least complicit, by his membership card, in the actions of that Government. They set up the war crimes tribunal in the full knowledge that there were many thousands of British personnel in the former Yugoslavia. They, rightly, made no exemption for British personnel. Can he cite a single case where the operational effectiveness of British personnel in the former Yugoslavia was impeded by the existence of that tribunal?
      Mr. Maude: As I have said on several occasions, if the Opposition had random, fanciful anxieties, the Foreign Secretary would be entitled to dismiss them airily and carry on regardless. However, those anxieties are not simply ours; the most senior member of the British armed forces, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that he was genuinely worried that the Bill as it is currently drafted would impede military effectiveness.
      Perhaps the Foreign Secretary wishes to ride roughshod over such anxieties, but they are genuine. One does not need to be absolutely sure that a risk will be realised;
      334
      the possibility should he enough to make a responsible Government and Parliament think twice before enacting such a Bill. We have steadily proposed changes as the Bill has progressed. We cannot support the measure unless some serious changes are made.
      Mr. Corbyn: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Conservative party believes that the British armed forces should not be covered by the Bill. How would he respond if, for example, the Indonesian Government said that they were happy to sign up to the statute that establishes the International Criminal Court, but that it should not cover the Indonesian armed forces? That would be nonsensical. If we believe in international jurisdiction, it should cover everybody on everything.
      Mr. Maude: I am a Member of this Parliament. We have a specific responsibility for members of the British armed forces. We ask them to risk their lives, sometimes in horrific circumstances, fighting for their country. We are the Parliament of that country, and it is therefore our task to voice genuine anxieties about our armed forces' safety, and their ability to operate effectively and discharge the heavy burdens that we place upon them from time to time. I am obliged to express those anxieties, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not feel able to pick them up.
      Several honMembers rose—
      Mr. Maude: There are other groups of amendments and we are subject to a stringent programme motion of three hours. I therefore wish to proceed with my speech.
      Although the treaty was negotiated some time ago, the Bill was introduced extremely late. It is now being bounced through on a strict guillotine so that the Foreign Secretary can try to add a little lustre to his chipped and damaged ethical foreign policy.
      The Foreign Secretary is trying to force through a Bill that genuinely places in jeopardy the military effectiveness of the British armed forces, so that he can continue his grandstanding and try to repair his discredited ethical foreign policy. The House should not accept that, and I therefore ask hon. Members to support the new clause.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: I shall be brief. I wanted to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), but that was not possible. 1 shall therefore say a few words about the new clause.
      The proposal represents a classic Conservative party position: the opt-out. The new clause refers to seven years; it does not state: "for the duration of the next Parliament". Perhaps it means, "for the duration of two Parliaments". However, the right hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag; the new clause represents not an opt-out for seven years, but opposition to the principle of subjecting the British Army to the Bill. That reflects the Conservative party position on the euro. The Opposition claim that they are doing something for a limited period, but only because they know that some of their colleagues would disagree if they stated that an opt-out was

      335
      indefinite. They therefore adopt a compromise position of claiming that their proposal would operate for a limited period—seven years in the case that we are considering. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) if he wants to clarify matters.
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman asks why the new clause specifies seven years. The answer is simple: the statute of Rome provides for that.
      Mr. Gapes: The period could be longer. The new clause could state, "seven years or more".
      Mr. Maude: The statute of Rome provides for seven years.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Gapes: I am happy to give way again if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to respond. He does not wish to do that.
      I shall draw attention to another matter. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of the limited time that is available, I suggest that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) carry on with his speech.
      Mr. Gapes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, if we accept the new clauses, the British forces would be sending a very interesting message to other countries. If it is good enough for the International Criminal Court to be empowered to act against the armed forces of countries that perhaps do not maintain the scrupulous standards and have the generally exemplary record of our own armed forces, why is it not good enough for those provisions to apply to the British Army when it is serving with the United Nations in Bosnia, doing such an excellent job in Kosovo or protecting human rights and defending democracy in Sierra Leone?
      Why should not the sanctions of the International Criminal Court apply to our armed forces, who are not accused of committing war crimes, massacres or human rights abuses—all of which are accusations that have been made against the armed forces of other countries that will be ratifying the International Criminal Court statute?
      New clause 3 is a Conservative wrecking amendment. It is designed to wreck the Bill. We had it from the mouth of the right hon. Member for Horsham that Conservative Members' real position is to vote against, or at least not to support this International Criminal Court legislation. The public, the abused non-governmental organisations, and everyone in Churches, pressure groups, campaigns and schools can draw their own conclusions about Conservative Members' attitude to human rights, democracy and international law.
      Mr. Maclennan: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I very much disliked the implication of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that the Conservative party is the only party in the House that is
      336
      concerned about the position of our armed services, and that in supporting the Bill we are in some way in dereliction of our obligation. That is a total defiance of sense and is at odds with the Bill's underlying purposes, one of which is the protection of our own troops from the violation of the laws of war by the creation of an effective system that eventually will be capable of bringing to justice those who deby that system.
      In this century, our troops have been the victims of the defiance of the laws of war not in their tens or hundreds, but in their hundreds of thousands. In the first world war, how many of our people were gassed in defiance of the laws of war? How ineffective have we been in erecting a system of international justice to bring the perpetrators of such atrocities to justice? The reality is that this legislation is a very small step in effectively implementing what the Foreign Secretary has rightly described as existing international public law in relation to the laws of war.
      The distortion and inflation of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce's comments—
      Mr. Maude rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of a sentence. I would like to finish making the point before he replies to it.
      Admiral Sir Michael Boyce was giving evidence on an entirely different matter when he made an incidental remark. I have no reason to believe that anything that he said expressed the view that the Bill should not be given effect. He certainly did not say so in terms.
      Mr. Maude rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: Nor did he express the view that the statute of Rome was against the interests of our troops.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. I think that I can ask the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to wait until the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has signified that he is giving way.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now happily give way.
      Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He accused me of having distorted the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but I quoted the Chief of the Defence Staff absolutely verbatim. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that someone who occupies such a position is prone to making casual, off-the-cuff remarks about a matter of such gravity, he has a much lower opinion of him than I do.
      Mr. Maclennan: I most certainly did not suggest that, because we have heard those words and read them on a number of occasions. They have been repeated ad nauseam on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but they do not sustain the weight or the interpretation that has been attached to them. That is the point that I wanted to make. The Conservative spokesman is ignoring the whole purpose and point of the Bill and that should not go unchallenged. It is very much in the interests of our armed services that the rule of international law and the extension of the effectiveness of sanctions against abuses

      337
      of the law are properly in place and that we can bring to justice the perpetrators of the crimes from which our armed forces have suffered over the past century and before. I commend the Government's efforts in doing so.
      5 pm
      Mr. Browne: I rise to oppose the amendments, if not in the same style, at least with the same quality of indignation that was expressed by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). The suggestion that the only hon. Members who can speak effectively on behalf of the safety and security of our armed forces are the few Conservative Members who have spoken today is an untruth that has to be put in its place. Looking at the amendments and the intellectual discipline that lies behind them, I suspect that they are nothing more than a lame excuse for an opportunity to vote against the Bill.
      Mr. Eric Forth: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Browne: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that. The amendments are a lame excuse for an opportunity to vote against the legislation; they are not good reasons to do so.
      My first point was also made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and concerns the reliance that we place on the rule of law in relation to war for the protection of not only our armed forces, but our civilian population in a time of conflict. I made that point in Committee and it has never been addressed by anyone who has spoken in favour of amendments or in opposition to the Bill from the point of view that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) or anyone else.
      What message do we give other countries if we start to pick and choose when our soldiers will be subject to the rule of law in relation to war? What protection do we give our armed forces in the long term if we say to them that we are going into war in a situation where those with whom we are in conflict know that we have excused our armed forces from being subject to the jurisdiction of the court that will enforce these laws". If that cannot be answered other than by saying, "I am addressing this subject as a Member of the British Parliament", it does not stand examination.
      Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he cannot have his cake and eat it. The amendment would simply take into account article l24 and allow the armed forces to be exempt for seven years from article 8, which is the area of greatest concern to the armed forces and relates to a court over which we have precious little control, unlike the international tribunal over Yugoslavia, and to the nominations of the prosecutor and the judges. Britain has far less influence over how article 8 will be applied. For seven years, our armed forces will be able to see how the International Criminal Court works in respect of our armed forces. If, after seven years, we are content with the justice meted out by the British courts—as he rightly points out, British soldiers are subject to all the laws that the statute implements—we will be in a position to decide how the ICC is working. That is the purpose of the protection that we should be giving our armed forces.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention which neatly brings me to my second point.
      338
      I shall return to the nature of the reservation in article 124 and whether it can give our armed forces the comfort that the Opposition pretend that it can. That will be my third point. If we choose to take that reservation, what is sauce for the goose will be sauce for the gander, and every other country that has signed up to the statute—even some of those who were dismissed by the Opposition in Committee as being irrelevant to important international decisions because of their size, population or history—should be able to do the same thing. What sort of institution would we have if every nation exercised a seven-year opt-out for their armed forces, their nationals and crimes committed on their territory by other nationals? How would we then find out over seven years how the court dealt with crimes committed under article 8, when there would have been none for it to deal with? If every country exercised a reservation, as they would be entitled to do if we gave them the lead, there would be no seven-year history to rely on.
      Why should we in the UK have the arrogance to say that the court should practise on other countries' nationals while we watch to see whether the standard of justice is good enough for ours? What sort of message is that for a civilised country to send?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: We will hand over the selection of the prosecutor and judges of the International Criminal Court to all the nations that sign up, regardless of their size and weight. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to make such a change in relation to the United Nations, so that power was handed over to the General Assembly without the limitations of the Security Council? Does he understand the comparison?
      Mr. Browne: That is not a true analogy. The statute has been agreed by sovereign nations that discussed and negotiated a draft statute in a concentrated fashion against a set of international standards that they all accepted. They arrived at the statute in that fashion and, as one of the countries that put considerable effort into the eventual shape of the statute, we have agreed to ratify it. Importantly, we also agreed to treat the statute with the respect that it deserves. We undertook to put our faith in it and to work to ensure that the ICC can deliver what we hope it will deliver for peace in the world and the protection of humanity.
      At this stage, we cannot say, in effect, to the ICC, "Go away and practise on all the wee countries and when you have got it right and are up to a standard that we think is appropriate, then we will let our people be subject to its jurisdiction." We cannot do that.
      Mr. Blunt: Yes, we can.
      Mr. Browne: We can if we want to give up our leadership role. If we want to retain that role and imbue the court with the standards that have been generated by our system of justice—of which we are all rightly proud—we have to play an active role from the outset and have the confidence to make our citizens subject to its jurisdiction.
      Mr. Blunt: Which other nation—other than France, which has taken this exemption—of those that will probably ratify the treaty, has the same commitment of its soldiers around the world as a contribution to international

      339
      security as we have? Which other country has had a soldier die on active service in every single year since the second world war, other than the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Browne: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) earlier said, with heavy irony, that I know everything, but I do not know the answer to that question. There is no point in my pretending that I do or giving the hon. Gentleman some smart reply, but that is not the point. We are not talking about justice by weighted majority. Opposition Members' arguments seem to depend on the size of a country's armed forces, or whether the armed forces involved are British. The contribution of sovereign nations to international justice must not be judged according to the number of citizens that they have or according to the size of their standing armies. Their contribution must be judged according to principles of decency, law and justice.
      Britain has given many of those principles to the world. Arguments about the ICC should be tested against those principles, not against some pretended self-interest.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is the national interest.
      Mr. Browne: With respect, it is not the national interest. The Opposition are using the argument as an excuse to vote against the Bill. The new clause purports to offer a principled reason for opposition to the measure, but no real principle is at stake. The Opposition contribution to debate on this Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, has been a total pretence. They have pretended that, in principle, they are in favour of it, but all the time they have been constructing an excuse to vote against it at this stage in its progress. The truth behind that pretence is now visible.
      Mr. Blunt: The Government should call our bluff.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the new clause is a bluff. It will be called.
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Opposition are simply looking for a reason to vote against the Bill. That is not the case: we are concerned with the Bill as it stands. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) noted that Britain, like the United States and France, is one of the few countries that consistently deploys troops abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman consider it unprincipled of France to want protection for its armed forces when they are deployed internationally? Does he consider President Clinton unprincipled because, until the last moment, he refused to sign the statute in its current form—and then recommended that his successor did not ratify the statute?
      Mr. Browne: I am not privy to the motivations of other countries or their leaders. I am not prepared to speculate, but I have been present through every minute of parliamentary deliberation on this Bill, on the Floor of
      340
      the House and in Committee. The right hon. Member for Horsham cannot say as much. I have been present to hear the arguments and to test them.
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend has been able to read the debates.
      Mr. Browne: The question is not whether the right hon. Gentleman can read the arguments: sometimes it is more important to see the expressions on people's faces, and their body language, when they speak. I have been present at all the debates, and I have come to a view on that informed basis. I have not had the opportunity to spend the same amount of time with President Clinton or the French Government. If I had had that opportunity, I would have been able to reach an informed view on the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore do not accept his invitation to speculate.
      However, I suspect that the French know how much protection the reservation under article 124 will give their armed forces. I also suspect that the right hon. Member for Horsham did not know that when he first moved the new clause at the Dispatch Box, because it had to be pointed out to him that it applies only to article 8—not to crimes alleged to have been committed in contravention of articles 6 or 7.
      Therefore, even if the right hon. Gentleman were to succeed in getting the new clause accepted, how could he tell our armed forces that they would never, over the seven-year period, be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, or to the possibility of such jurisdiction? It is for the very reason that our armed forces might be subject to ICC jurisdiction that the whole of the court's jurisdiction should apply to Britain. In that way, we can ensure that the jurisdiction develops in the way that we want it to, in accordance with the standards that I described earlier.
      For all those reasons, which I think are principled and logical, I oppose the new clause. Fundamentally, however, I oppose it to expose the reality behind it. The new clause is simply an excuse for Conservative Members to vote against the Bill.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I strongly support the case so ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) in moving the new clause. It is vital, for a number of reasons.
      Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I was present at most of the Committee's sittings. As the Minister said, we had a constructive debate. The Minister was good enough to acknowledge that the issues raised by the Opposition were serious and that we had not been frivolous or wasted time. If we repeat some of the arguments that were advanced in Committee, it is only so that the House more widely should recognise that we had serious and responsible debates in Committee.
      We are not talking about an ad-hoc tribunal such as that for Yugoslavia. The Bill will set up a supranational court for all time—that is what is so important. Protections have been built in, but there will be severe limitations on the influence that the United Kingdom can bring to bear over the passage of time. It is therefore right and proper for the

      341
      House of Commons to consider most carefully the Bill's implications. Indeed, it would be a denial of our duty to the people of this country not to do so.
      The new clause seeks to give the Government—the next Conservative Government on 8 June, and the one after that—time to see how the court will evolve, given all the implications that it will have for our armed forces. The court will not be cast in stone for all time but evolve, and we will have very little influence over that evolution. We have already discussed at some length how the House will have very little influence over the decisions made by the Government in representing the British case as to how the court develops.
      There are three issues at stake and three reasons why I believe that the new clause should be accepted. First, it is the primary responsibility of the House to ensure that we give every possible protection to Her Majesty's armed forces. They are charged with the responsibility, by this House—and, more directly, by the Government of the day—to carry out the wishes of the House and the Government in defending our national interests abroad and defending our territory at home. Members of our armed forces join up with the very real prospect that they may be called upon to lay down their lives for their country—not something that those of us who stand successfully for re-election on 7 June will be called upon to do.
      My right hon. Friend drew attention to the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff. I have met him only once, but I believe him to be an extremely able man. I would prefer to rely on his judgment, I am afraid, than that of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). Sir Michael Boyce has served with distinction in our armed forces. He understands what our armed forces are called upon to do, and he understands the implications. Ultimately, it will be his responsibility to carry out the wishes of the Government of the day. Therefore, it seems better to rely on his words than on those of probably any Member of the House.
      I do not accuse the Government of indifference to the consequences for our armed forces of the passage of the Bill. However, as the Member for Aldershot—the home of the British Army—I think that the Government have not given full consideration to them. I do not refer to the way that the court would handle an accusation that members of Her Majesty's armed forces had contravened the articles of the statute of Rome, but to the evolution of the court—how things might occur in future and how our armed forces might be subject to such events.
      Although there are members of the armed services in the constituency of every right hon. and hon. Member, and we all owe them a duty, I believe that the Conservative party has always been much more in tune with the concerns and needs of the amed forces. Labour Members may disagree, but that is my view.
      My second point is that, in Committee, the Minister made great play of the fact that our armed forces would never be called on to face charges under the legislation. As the Foreign Secretary reminded u earlier, on Second Reading he said:
      "British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities".—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 222.]
      342
      That, in essence, is the Government's case.
      Mr. Robin Cook indicated assent.
      Mr. Howarth: The Foreign Secretary nods in agreement.
      However, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, which I want to emphasise to the Foreign Secretary, is that the Government are in no position to make that unequivocal guarantee. The Government rely on the principle of complementarity—a ghastly word that has been introduced specifically for this statute and its incorporation in United Kingdom law. That means that the United Kingdom will first hear any allegation made against a member of Her Majesty's forces. However, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister know that, under article 17 of the Rome statute, headed "Issues of admissibility", a case would be inadmissible where
      "The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned".
      But a caveat follows:
      "unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute".
      The Foreign Secretary cannot tell us today that, in 10 or 15 years, the ICC may not take a contrary view. For example, what would happen if the United Kingdom decided that a military operation involving substantial loss of civilian life was none the less not a war crime under the measure, but the ICC took a different view? I speculate, but I am entitled to do so. If we decided not to prosecute in such a case, the court could say that, although the United Kingdom was unwilling to prosecute, the military operation was excessive and did not justify the resulting loss of civilian life. The people involved—possibly even our Prime Minister—could be brought before the court.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman and I took part in some interesting debates in Committee. He raises an important point of principle in respect of the establishment of an international criminal court of any description, never mind the one that we are discussing. Against the standard that he sets, we cannot give our armed forces an unequivocal guarantee that they will not be brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which exercises a jurisdiction that is not complementary to but supersedes that of our domestic courts. Should we therefore withdraw our forces from their peacekeeping work in the former Yugoslavia?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times, and I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who has comprehensively demolished his argument on that score. That court was an ad-hoc tribunal, but the International Criminal Court will not be. It will be a major international institution, for all time to come. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun the difference between the constitutions of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, and between the influence that the United Kingdom has in the United Nations and its lack of influence in the International Criminal Court.
      Mr. Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that if any of our forces came before the ICTY, we would

      343
      immediately withdraw our support for it? Is the difference between an ad-hoc tribunal and an established court simply that we can withdraw our support from an ad-hoc tribunal the moment that a UK national or member of the British armed forces comes before it? Is our support for international justice conditional on its not applying to us?
      Mr. Howarth: The ICTY was set up during the conflict and at the end of the conflict, British troops obviously had not infringed. We are trying to anticipate scenarios where our troops could stand accused of having committed war crimes that were not considered, either by the Government of the United Kingdom or by our courts, to be war crimes.
      The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He said that there was no guarantee that we could give our troops in respect of the ICTY. I repeat that the Foreign Secretary said:
      "British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court".—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366. c. 222.]
      Does the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun disagree with the Foreign Secretary?
      Mr. Browne indicated dissent.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman does not disagree with his right hon. Friend, but we are saying that the Foreign Secretary is in no position to give that guarantee, which he has sought to wave in front of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce and the rest of our armed forces.
      Mr. Blunt: The point that my hon. Friend is making was illustrated by the Solicitor-General's promise in Committee concerning the fact that the prosecutor of the ICTY decided that the bombing of the television station did not amount to a crime, as far as the Prime Minister was concerned, and that he should not be brought to justice in front of The Hague tribunal. That was a decision of the prosecutor—a prosecutor over whom we had much greater influence and control than we shall have over the prosecutor—
      Mr. Robin Cook: Withdraw.
      Mr. Blunt: I heard the Foreign Secretary say, "Withdraw."
      Mr. Cook rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary cannot intervene on an intervention, even though he may, like me, have begun to wonder whether it was a speech.
      Mr. Blunt: I shall deal with the point if you will let me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary was saying, "Withdraw." Voting for the prosecutor in the International Criminal Court is by majority, and the United Kingdom and other states could be outvoted. It is clear that we have less influence over the selection of the prosecutor for the ICC than we did over that of the prosecutor in The Hague. That is the simple point that is being made, and so—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions have been getting longer and longer, and it would be better if hon. Members kept perorations out of them.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The exchanges illustrate the nonsense of the Government's position in having tried to
      344
      rush this measure through and force us into a programme motion tonight. This is a very serious issue, which affects our country, and particularly our armed forces. It is a tragedy that the Government have sought to treat the matter in this way.
      I said that I had three points to raise, and I have raised two. The first concerned our armed forces, and the second my belief that the complementarity argument was not a sufficient safeguard for our troops. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham mentioned, the French have reservations. I am not known for siding naturally with the French, but I can tell the Foreign Secretary that I love going on holiday to France, and that I have a French brother-in-law and a French motor car. I do not think that I can be accused of xenophobia.
      Not only have the French entered reservations; so has the United States of America. I do not want to labour the point because I think that most members of the Standing Committee and most Members of the House are well aware that it was not until the dying hours of his somewhat discredited term of office that President Clinton signed the treaty and left the Senate to ratify the statute. It is clear that the Bush Administration are wholly hostile to ratification.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Maude: Does my hon. Friend recollect that President Clinton not only signed the statute at the very last moment, but specifically said when doing so that it was only to preserve America's negotiating position and recommended that his successor should not ratify it?
      Mr. Howarth: That is a most telling point and a powerful reason why the House should accept the new clause.
      I think that I heard the Foreign Secretary on "Today" earlier this week or last week say that the United States was our closest ally. [Interruption.] I think that he is saying "Hear, hear", so he accepts that. If our closest ally has such reservations about the International Criminal Court, why do the Government want to rush headlong into ratifying the statute, failing to take advantage of the breathing space afforded by article 124?
      Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because I want to conclude.
      I remind the House that on 29 November last year, a group of very senior American public figures sent a note to the majority whip in the US House of Representatives expressing strong support for the American Servicemembers' Protection Act 2000, which was introduced to protect the sovereignty of the United States in respect of the International Criminal Court. The letter said:
      "War crimes and other human rights violations have long been subject to criminal penalties under U.S. law, and the United States has a far better record of enforcing its laws against human rights violations than some of the countries that support the ICC."
      That letter was signed by a cast of senior people who were involved at the highest level of government in the most recent conflicts in winch the United States and the United Kingdom have taken part: Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense; Henry Kissenger, former Secretary of State;

      345
      Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Baker, former Secretary of State.
      Those men are hugely powerful, and they are protecting their armed forces. We should protect ours. One way in which the Government could do so, which would not undermine the Bill or the Government's position in respect of the International Criminal Court, would be to accept the new clause, thereby allowing us to derogate for seven years and buying ourselves some time while we see how the court develops.
      Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief because we are nearing the end of the debate.
      I have a feeling that if the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) had been a Member of this House during the summer of 1945, he would have made exactly the same speech about why we should not ratify the United Nations charter, as, no doubt, he would have about the League of Nations covenant, the International Labour Organisation declaration and any international treaty there ever was.
      We seem to be losing sight of the reality that the Bill has come about because of the revulsion of many people around the world at abuses of human rights and the unbridled power of dictatorships. They see the need to bring such dictators to heel if they are no longer to be the victims of the arbitrary power that is often held by military dictators and regimes.
      I remember—I am sure that many hon. Members do—the trenchant defence of General Pinochet that was mounted by the hon. Member for Aldershot and some of his friends. They continue to do that but no stage have they ever appeared to notice that thousands of people died in Chile at the hands of Pinochet and many others. Pinochet could not be brought to court under this process, because it is not retrospective. However, it will ensure that any country that signs up to the treaty will—yes—expose itself to possible prosecutions under it but, in doing so, it will set an example, a standard and a norm. That is why I strongly oppose the new clauses.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, if we believe that every other country should sign up to the treaty and possibly put all their institutions before an international court, we should be prepared to do exactly the same. If Argentina, which has signed and ratified the treaty, has not asked for an exemption for its armed forces—and, my God, Argentine armed forces committed many human rights violations at the time of Operation Condor—what have we got to be afraid of? We should sign up to the treaty in its entirety.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants Senator Pinochet to appear before the International Criminal Court, but does he want the President of China to appear before it too?
      Mr. Corbyn: Although the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee and I was not, I have pointed out to him on many occasions that it is not retrospective legislation. If any country that signs up to the treaty is accused of violations of human rights or matters that would bring it within the purview of the International Criminal Court, it should be brought within its purview. That is the basis of the process.
      346
      The idea that we should ask for an exemption for our armed forces is ridiculous. If we ask for that exemption, who are we to oppose anyone else's exemption? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out—many of us have—the consequences of our asking for an exemption. What would happen if Indonesia said that it was happy to sign the treaty, but would not, at any stage, allow the Indonesian armed forces—many of us have seen what they are capable of in East Timor and other places—to be exposed to any prosecution under the law? That would be a joke, and everyone would know it.
      It is important that all institutions are covered by the court, but we should remember that many of the worst violations of human rights are not carried out by statutory armed forces but by militia forces acting more or less on behalf of the armed forces. Let us consider what happened in East Timor, and is now happening in Aceh and West Papua in Indonesia, or events in Colombia. There are many other examples of armies and regimes using militia forces to carry out the most appalling violations of human rights.
      The House has an opportunity today to allow the Bill to proceed. I regret the exemptions that are included in the Bill and that we shall not have time to debate them. I hope that, in another Parliament, we shall be able to return to the issue and deal with those exemptions, because I do not believe that the power of discretion that is held by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary is necessarily within the spirit of the Bill's origins.
      Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman referred to Indonesia, but does he not understand the position that Britain is in? Britain is one of the three western countries that consistently and properly deploy their troops abroad in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. The other two are France and America, and Socialist Prime Minister Jospin and the former Democrat President Clinton have both seen grave dangers in subjecting their armed forces, which are involved in such operations, to the jurisdiction of the court. Why does he think that Britain's armed forces should uniquely in this group of three internationally oriented sets of armed forces be put in jeopardy in this way?
      Mr. Corbyn: If we believe in the rule of law, in international conventions and in the power of a democracy to control its armed forces, what have we got to be afraid of? We should sign up to the treaty in its entirety.
      It is obviously true that British armed forces are involved in various parts of the world. I sometimes wish that they were not. They are not always under the control of the United Nations; sometimes they are under NATO command. We are not the only country to deploy forces elsewhere. India, Ireland, Sweden and Canada do the same. Many not so large countries have often made significant contributions to the work of the UN. I hear no arguments from them that their armed forces should be exempt. We should reject the Opposition's isolationist arguments and the new clause. We need to put the Bill on the statute book and return to it so that it can be improved.
      Mr. Battle: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was gracious enough to suggest that we had an important and serious debate on these matters in

      347
      Committee. That is also true of today's debate. New clause 3 is bit of a misnomer—it is actually a retread of a new clause that was discussed in Committee. Nevertheless, the debate has been rigorous, with good and telling contributions not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
      The purpose of the new clause is to bind the Government to the opt-out for war crimes under article 124 of the Rome statute. It is a delaying measure. The more I listened to the debate, the more convinced I became that the Conservatives are not behind the Bill's principles. Contrary to their arguments, we have every reason to be bound by the provisions of article 8 of the ICC statute. The crimes set out in that article are already crimes in international law. That message has not gone home. Many were incorporated into domestic law by previous Conservative Administrations under the Acts to implement the Geneva conventions. Why do they want to tear them up? I was slightly surprised by the tone and direction of the debate.
      Our armed forces already abide by those rules, against which their rules of engagement are drawn up and their conduct is judged. They are the rules by which they operate and, I believe, by which they excel in the practice of their duties. British troops serving in Bosnia or Kosovo are subject to international jurisdiction, which investigates allegations of the same crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia is a good example to consider. The international jurisdiction has not hampered its operations, as some hon. Members suggested. We need to be more positive and say that without this measure, our armed forces will be hampered. We are providing positive protection to give them full and proper back-up. We are not undermining them, but strengthening the protection of our service personnel against others who will not abide by international law.
      It is critical that we reject the new clause. It is also important to demonstrate leadership and stand up for the rule of law around the world. This country and its armed forces have been doing that on a daily basis for years. We should support them.
      Mr. Blunt: Perhaps the Minister could explain why the French have made at least eight definitional declarations about what article 8 means in their declarations on signing the treaty.
      Mr. Battle: I am happy to discuss France. The hon. Gentleman has followed our debates in detail and I am sure that he is aware that article 8 crimes are drawn from the first additional protocol of the Geneva conventions. Almost alone among NATO members, France has not signed that protocol. I suspect that its caution can be ascribed to that fact. However, we have signed and ratified the protocol. Indeed, that was done by the previous Administration. If they signed us up to the Geneva conventions, which are implemented in international law, there is no reason why we should not move forward and implement the ICC statute.
      348
      I told the House that if we exercise the opt-out, we will send the most appalling signal to those countries that we want to encourage to build the international institution and ensure that it is properly supported. On the Rome statute, Lord Kingsland said:
      "There is, however, one immense drawback … The drawback is that there is a seven year prohibition on the instigation of any prosecution for war crimes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1998; Vol. 592, 626.]
      Even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson in another place argued and agreed that there should not be an opt-out. I am surprised that the Opposition spokesperson in this place does not agree with what has been going on down the Corridor in the House of Lords.
      The ICC poses no threat to our armed forces. It will have no impact on their rules of engagement. It will make no change to the fundamental laws of war under which our armed forces already operate, and which are part of the daily training of every British serving officer. The Ministry of Defence has been engaged at every stage in the elaboration of the statute and in the drafting of the Bill. It is content that the Bill gives full protection to our armed services.
      I remind the Opposition that the former head of the Army legal services, Major General Tony Rogers, said:
      "When carrying out attacks on military objectives, we are already under a treaty obligation not to cause disproportionate incidental loss and damage to the civilian population."
      He added:
      "The Geneva Conventions have been put to the test recently. I am not aware we had any problems complying with our treaty obligations during the Gulf War or 1991 or the Kosovo war of 1999."
      The same point has been made by others, and I shall give an example. The hon. Member for Aldershot wanted to quote American examples. If he were to read the Harvard International Law Journal, he would find that Jocknick and Normand have written:
      "One claim has survived the twisted aftermath of the Gulf War intact—namely that the coalition used modern military techniques to comply with the fundamental legal requirements to distinguish between civilians and combatants more effectively than any belligerent in any past war."
      General Colin Powell commented that the decisions were impacted on by legal considerations at every level and that the law of war proved invaluable in the decision-making process.
      5.45 pm
      Judge Richard Goldstone, the former prosecutor of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, commented "I have no doubts that the fears are without justification at all. Firstly, the war crimes defined in the Rome statute are really the most serious war crimes internationally committed." We should remember that. We are talking about crimes of genocide—crimes against humanity. These are megacrimes. The judge added "In the second place, the ICC will not have jurisdiction at all over a British citizen if the British military and civil courts investigate in good faith any allegations made."
      Ten current and former presidents of the United States Society of International Law, replying precisely to the letter that the hon. Member for Aldershot read out and prayed in aid, said:
      "Seldom in the course of public discussion of a great international issue have so many great and good former officials been so misinformed about fundamental principles of international law.

      349
      Without some international agreement to the contrary, the American airman shot down, for example, while carrying out a bombing mission over foreign territory will under customary international law be subject to territorial jurisdiction of a target state. This is not a newly minted principle of customary international law."
      Similarly, what we are doing is not new and is not a newly minted principle. We are continuing the proud and honourable role that the United Kingdom has played in the development and enforcement of international humanitarian law. We have a history and a tradition that go back to the 17th century of drawing up rules of engagement, and we have been proud to be part of that process.
      Britain has played a full part in the development of the laws of war. It was Conservative Governments who passed the relevant legislation in 1957 and 1995 that enabled the ratification of the Geneva conventions and the additional protocols.
      There have been some interesting exchanges during this debate. The more the shadow Foreign Secretary was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the more his arguments were exposed. He does not simply have reservations about the details of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman demonstrated that the Conservatives oppose the Bill in principle and that their amendments are stalking horses for blocking it and ensuring that it does not take its place on the statute book. I recommend that we reject the new clause.
      Mr. Maude: This has been a useful debate because it has established beyond any doubt the fact that the Foreign Secretary is simply not able to give a binding assurance to our armed forces that they will be secure against vexatious prosecutions conducted under the Bill. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has made it clear that that possibility cannot be excluded under the Bill in its current form. Frankly, we heard some thoroughly bogus arguments from Government Members. The case was made that, somehow, article 124 does not apply to war crimes; it permits article 8 on war crimes not to be applied to a country's armed forces, which is why the French exercised their opt-out.
      British armed forces are in a special position because they, along with the French and the Americans, are consistently deployed abroad. The Americans have made their decision; President Clinton—not President Bush—said that he would not ask the Senate to ratify the treaty, nor would he recommend that hi successor did so. Socialist Prime Minister Jospin—
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put and negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Pearson]
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 73.

      Division No. 209]

      [5.51 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Anderson Rt Hon Donald

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      (Swar sea E)

      Allan, Richard

      Anderson Janet (Rossendale)

      Allen, Graham

      Ashton, Joe

      Atkins, Charlotte

      350

      Austin, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Banks, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barnes, Harry

      Gunnell, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Hain, Peter

      Battle, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hanson, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Harvey, Nick

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Healey, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Hendrick, Mark

      Benton, Joe

      Heppell, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hill, Keith

      Berry, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Hoey, Kate

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Browne, Desmond

      Hope, Phil

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Burden, Richard

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzines (NE Fife)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hutton, John

      Caton, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Chaytor, David

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Church, Ms Judith

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Joyce, Eric

      Cohen, Harry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Connarty, Michael

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cotter, Brian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Cox, Tom

      Levitt, Tom

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cummings, John

      McAllion, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davidson, Ian

      McCabe, Steve

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Macdonald, Calum

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Dobbin, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McNamara, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      MacShane, Denis

      Dowd, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McWilliam, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Efford, Clive

      Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Martlew, Eric

      Etherington, Bill

      Maxton, John

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Meale, Alan

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Merron, Gillian

      Flint, Caroline

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Miller, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mitchell, Austin

      Gapes, Mike

      Moffatt, Laura

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Morley Elliot

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Goggins, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mullin, Chris

      351

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pike, Peter L

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Timms, Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tynan, Bill

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rogers, Allan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wilson, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winnick, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Worthington, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Speller, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Green, Damian

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baldry, Tony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Bercow, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Body, Sir Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Butterfill, John

      Johnson Smith,

      Cash, William

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Key, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Chope, Christopher

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Leigh, Edward

      Collins, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cran, James

      Loughton, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Luff, Peter

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fallon, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Flight, Howard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Madel, Sir David

      Gale, Roger

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Garnier, Edward

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Gill, Christopher

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robathan, Andrew

      352

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Trend, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Wells, Bowen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Spring, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr.Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      Swayne, Desmond

      and

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      Question accordingly agreed to

      Bill reed the Third time, and passed without amendment

  PETITION

    TransBus plc
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Jean May Taylor and Graham Collins, my constituents, and of more than 3,500 local people from Scarborough who wish to see the devastating announcement by TransBus plc concerning the closure of the Plaxton bus and coach factory at Eastfield in my constituency reconsidered by the company, and to have the support of this House to achieve that aim.
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Jean May Taylor and Graham Collins constituents of Scarborough and Whitby constituency and North Yorkshire sheweth
    That TransBus plc has announced the proposed closure of the Plaxton bus and coach factory, Eastfield on Thursday 3rd May 2001, thereby denying its 00 employees future employment and consequential loss of employment opportunities in Scarborough and North Yorkshire with associated companies and the potential collapse of the local economy.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge TransBus plc to reconsider the proposed closure of their Eastfield factory after assessment of future market opportunities in the United Kingdom and their responsibilities to employees, local communities and the Scarborough economy; note the establishment of the Eastfield rapid reaction taskforce to secure a satisfactory sustainable solution for job opportunities in the Scarborough area; and support the representations by the Honourable Member for Scarborough and Whitby to Her Majesy's Government for the enhancement of economic prospects for Scarborough and Whitby by consideration of special assisted area status, progress on upgrading of the A64 transport corridor and the fullest support for the Eastfield rapid reaction taskforce.
    I pray that the House will support this petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Flood Defence
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: We unexpectedly have longer to debate the important subject of flood defence than we anticipated. I hope that we will not take up the entire time until 7.30 pm, but the issue is critical for residents of south Derbyshire, and I am glad to be able to raise it in this Parliament.
  In early November last year, many households in my constituency suffered the terrible experience of flooding. In the worst hit village of Hatton, 142 properties were flooded, and many people experienced the misery of sewage flowing back into their homes. Other villages along the Trent and Dove, including Willington, Barrow on Trent, Scropton, Hilton and Shardlow experienced severe disruption and the flooding of some properties. Local land drainage failures caused flooding in other villages such as Stanton.
  In most cases, defences that were the responsibility of the Environment Agency were overtopped, but other drainage problems often contributed to the damage. Emergency services responded well, but were stretched to the limit. Since the floods, repairs and restoration have been the main preoccupation of many lives. Some people fully reoccupied their homes only very recently.
  The various public agencies that are responsible in the area—the Environment Agency, parish, district and county councils and the sewerage operator, Severn Trent—tried first to understand what happened and secondly to explain events. They are now starting to produce solutions that may prevent repetition in some areas. Some remedies have been agreed—for example, the repair and slight raising of the defences on the Foston brook. In other cases, however, there is far more to do.
  Considerable scrutiny of events has occurred nationally. That is hardly surprising in view of the scale of the disaster. The Environment Agency produced its report, entitled "Lessons Learned", and the National Audit Office has published a report on inland flood defence. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Select Committee on Agriculture have also produced relevant reports. I want to draw out some key points that were made in several reports and reflect the south Derbyshire experience.
  First, I shall quote from "Lessons Learned", which states:
  "The attribution of responsibility for the management of water courses posing a significant flood risk needs to be reassessed."
  It is not clear in my area why some water courses are the responsibility of the Environment Agency and others are not, when their interdependence as drainage mechanisms is clear.
  When the Agriculture Committee took evidence from the Environment Agency, reference was made to the accident of the agency being responsible for some water courses while others were left in the hands of riparian owners. One Environment Agency representative said that that often related to the membership of flood defence committees and the influence that certain landowners had
  354
  exerted in the past, the results of which had been passed on to the agency. There is no logic to the assignation of responsibility for water courses.
  Secondly, when water courses are the specific responsibility of riparian owners, their performance is supposed to be monitored and enforced by local authorities. Many local authorities choose not to carry out that function or believe that they cannot. In reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 2 May, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food listed seven councils that were not prepared to inspect flood defences, 12 that had failed to respond to Environment Agency inquiries and 115 that were unable to carry out inspections or did not believe that they had the resources to do the job. That renders a holistic grasp of flood defence in many areas impossible.
  Scrutiny of the list of councils that the Minister provided to me reveals that many of them cover areas that were severely afflicted by the floods last October and November. Although, fortunately, none of the councils in my area were included on the list, I think that many hon. Members would be surprised to discover the attitude displayed by their local authorities to such a critical issue. It is also true that, relying on the activity of individual local authorities causes grave inconsistencies both in the standard of inspection that is achieved, when there are inspections, and in the precise measures that are used to identify shortcomings.
  There are solutions to that problem. In its "Lessons Learned" report, the Environment Agency sets out quite clearly a view that I strongly endorse: the Environment Agency should have either the power to inspect or the power to compel others to inspect. Clearly that would require either additional resources for the Environment Agency to perform the role itself or additional powers for it to force unwilling local authorities to act. That however brings us to the third issue, which concerns the resources applied to doing the job.
  It is clear that the resources available both to the Environment Agency and to local authorities are inadequate. One can certainly draw that lesson from the responses of local authorities, especially as many of the 115 local authorities that I mentioned said that they would have liked to fulfil that responsibility but felt that they did not have sufficient resources to do so.
  Research done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food itself has shown that additional funding is required for flood defence, which is a point that is reiterated in the "Lessons Learned" report. The National Audit Office report, which focused on the state of our flood defences, said that asset surveys completed up to last autumn showed that, as regards standards of preparedness to meet their objective, 40 per cent. of flood defence assets fall into the categories of fair, poor or very poor.
  Fourthly, some expenditure is urgently required. We should review the decision-making process and the criteria used in deciding on flood defence construction. In my area, parts of the village of Hatton have defences intended to protect for only one in 10 years. The defences of the rest of the village, with one small exception, were intended to protect for one in 100 years. As the Environment Agency points out in its "Lessons Learned" report, we should support consistent standards across individual communities.

  355
  It would be difficult for me to defend to the citizens of Hatton the proposition that we expect lower maintenance levels and less flood protection in one area of Hatton than in another area that is just the other side of a railway track that forms the major defence for the rest of the village. That is not a defensible position, and I am glad that the Environment Agency is highlighting it as one of the issues that must be addressed in deciding on future defences.
  We should review the criteria on which investment decisions are based. Sadly, not everyone in south Derbyshire was properly insured against flooding, so that some householders themselves have had to bear the cost of the damage. Nevertheless, currently, the costs that householders or, in most cases, their insurers have to bear are not those that are allowed for in the cost benefit analysis that is performed in justifying individual flood defence projects. Value added tax, which is ignored, is one obvious exception. However, most insurers have a replace-as-new policy, which is usually what householders prefer to trying to find a second-hand item that precisely matches the items lost in the flood. Those essentially modern-day views of the actual cost of flooding are not taken into account in the cost benefit analyses that are used to justify defences.
  In the particular case of Hatton, this is likely to mean that upgrading the defences in the area beyond the railway line will be hard to justify against the criteria. The Environment Agency has carried out an initial analysis and there is more work to be done, so it is important not to prejudge that, but it has already indicated to me the difficulties of defending this particular group of houses and meeting the criteria that have been set down.
  Fifthly, the Government have published welcome draft revisions of PPG25 to tighten control on flood plain development. They have also decided to consult on my proposal—inserted in the report by the Select Committee on Agriculture—that the Environment Agency has the right to call in for public inquiry applications with which it disagrees.
  Currently, a local authority can choose to ignore the advice of the Environment Agency when it has reservations about construction on a flood plain. In my view, that power has led to foolish and inappropriate developments in the past, which in some cases have placed the residents of those developments at risk and in others have inconvenienced other people by occupying part of a flood plain that was there for a purpose—to hold water when we faced flood conditions. Clearly developments of that kind place at risk property, and in extreme cases, lives. The Environment Agency should have the power to insist on a public inquiry to examine an application on which it dissents.
  Sixthly, we must integrate the sewage operators in our flood defence framework. I shall again quote some local examples. It is clear that planning decisions often make optimistic assumptions about local domestic surface water drainage or systems that have decayed through local adaptation over time. What tends to happen is that when a new housing estate is constructed, the developer agrees that domestic surface water drainage will not go into the main sewage system, but instead go into soak-aways. Over time, people make adaptations to their properties and end up with the surface water drainage going into the foul
  356
  water system and overloading it. Sometimes the tests that are carried out to work out whether a soak-away will actually work in an area where the water table is very high—as it is in the village of Hatton—or in a low-lying area, make assumptions that are unsound.
  The first priority must be to make sure that that is clearly understood, because the linkage with the foul water system and then with the effectiveness of other surface water systems is critical. In some cases foul water systems critically depend, at overflow, on the effectiveness of surface water systems; and if the foul water system is supposed to overflow into a surface water system at times of crisis and is already over the top, then predictably, the foul water system will swiftly back up into the houses. That is what happened in Hatton, and villagers have rightly asked a lot of questions about the design of the sewage system and its ability to deal with reasonably predictable demand; and about the failure of Severn Trent Water to spot warning signals in respect of the performance of the sewage system in the past when residents regularly complained about the systems backing up or flooding into garden areas.
  Regrettably, at times of very high rainfall and flooding across the fields from Foston brook breach, that led to immense crisis in the village, with many people facing the most unpleasant experiences. Flooding is bad enough, but finding foul water coming back into one's house is a deeply depressing and distressing experience.
  As I have said, if the evidence of Hatton is typical, the links between the various elements of the system are not always properly understood. In Hatton, it was only after the event that Sever Trent, the Environment Agency and the local authority looked at the relationship between the various parts of the system and realised that some of the interdependence did not function properly. Clearly the sewage operators must be part of any framework of future planning.
  We must also be innovative. It is a truism that defences built in one place simply direct water elsewhere. Water does not disappear when flood defences are constructed: it is displaced and flows to another location. Defences built in one place are often to the disadvantage of people somewhere else, and more strategic planning is required. I welcome the catchment planning that is being carried out in five pilot projects, as described in a parliamentary answer that I received last week. I am sad that those five areas will not benefit my constituency, but the principle of viewing flooding strategically is sound. I hope that the pilot studies prove successful and, if so, are rapidly emulated elsewhere.
  We should, however, examine carefully the role of soft defences against flooding and how we can work with riparian farmers to ensure compatible land use, allowing flood dispersal and water storage in periods of heavy rain. It is clear that intensive agriculture, including density of livestock and crop choices, has substantial implications for the ability of a field system near a water course to absorb significant amounts of water when flooding takes place. Farmers in that position should be given a substantial incentive to cultivate their land, and practise animal husbandry, in ways that will allow flood dispersal on land that is less vulnerable than populated areas. That is an important function for which farmers could receive financial recognition. At a time when we are considering how to reconfigure agriculture and learn some of the lessons of the past few years, farmers could be invited to

  357
  play a critical role in such circumstances. That role could be readily defended to the rest of the community as an appropriate subsidy and support for the agriculture sector.
  Most experts predict that extreme weather conditions will become more common, so low lying areas such as much of south Derbyshire require a far higher priority to be given to both strategy and the local delivery of flood defence and management.
  I hope that the Government re-elected in four weeks' time will have the chance to give further thought to what I have said this evening and to the various reports produced in the past few weeks, in order to develop appropriate responses that will give comfort to the citizens of south Derbyshire who suffered so grievously. They are merely representative of many other people around the country who also look for much higher priority and greater strategic thought to be given to this critical subject which, for too long, has bumbled along in the background of Government thinking. It has been subject to the normal compromises of British thought, which involve the division of responsibilities among a variety of agencies, and men and women of goodwill co-operating together on common goals. Sadly, in the modern world, that, increasingly, is not a workable framework for dealing with a critical subject of strategic importance, which is what flood defence and flood management have become.
  6.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and on his detailed presentation of his case. He covered the villages that he represents—Hatton, Scropton, Willington, Barrow on Trent, Swarkstone, Shardlow, Ambaston and Egginton—and I should like to express my sympathy for the difficulties experienced by those of his constituents who have been affected by floods. I understand how distressing floods can be, and that the problem is even worse when foul water is involved.
  One of the problems identified by my hon. Friend was that the floods experienced by his constituents happened because of a combination of factors It is certainly true that there was over-topping of the river defences, but in addition the volume of water caused sewers to back up. The amount of surface water also posed difficulties.
  I understand the points made by my hon. Friend that arise from the "Lessons Learned" report on the recent flooding. Those matters include determining where responsibility for water courses lies, the roles of riparian owners and of their internal drainage boards, main and non-main river designations, and the high-level targets that I have set for the Environment Agency and local authorities.
  I share my hon. Friend's concern that many authorities seem not to have made much progress, and I shall touch on that in a moment, but I want to deal first with the problem of flooding in Hatton. He was right to say that it was caused by the River Dove rising so high that the Hatton sewage pumping station was flooded. As a result, the sewage system was flooded and the Foston flood defence bank was breached. Floodwater entered the sewage system through the combined foul and highway sewers.
  Since the flooding, Severn Trent Water has worked to improve and protect the sewage network in and around Hatton. I understand that the company has effectively
  358
  isolated the sewage system from the River Dove, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that. That should prevent the pumping station from being flooded if the river breaches its banks again.
  The company has also installed additional capacity at the pumping station to enable overflows to be pumped to a ditch. It has undertaken maintenance work on sewers in the area, which has included a closed-circuit television survey, cleaning work to improve the flow, and some repairs to prevent the infiltration of ground water into the sewers. An extensive study of the sewage systems in Hatton and the surrounding villages has begun, and will include some computer modelling. One-to-one interviews with householders have been carried out, and some householders have had non-return valves fitted to their drainage systems to prevent sewage back-flow problems.
  Severn Trent Water has also maintained close liaison with developers in the area to ensure that any new buildings do not have an adverse effect on the existing sewage system, or on existing residents. It deserves some credit for adopting a comprehensive approach to the problem in response to the concerns by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend raised a range of other matters, and I shall try to deal with them. I recognise that the arrangements for flood and coastal defence are complex, but he was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the matter, and so knows the arrangements better than most.
  The Environment Agency has a general supervisory duty for flood defence, but local authorities and internal drainage boards also have a role to play. Flooding from sewers is the responsibility of the local water and sewage company, whereas surface water is usually the responsibility of the relevant highways authority.
  Although a number of agencies are involved, I do not believe that an efficient and co-ordinated response is impossible. That is what we are trying to put in place by setting the high-level targets after the winter floods. We have asked all operating authorities to produce publicly available policy statements setting out their approach to flood and coastal defence and showing the water courses for which they are responsible. Those authorities must also say how they would manage flood risks on those water courses. Those statements will help to illuminate local approaches and give local communities the information by which they can judge the performance of these bodies.
  I recognise that this does not apply to the bodies responsible for sewers and surface waters. The Environment Agency has discussed with me the idea of using its Floodline service, which was very successful in the recent floods—it gave people a point of contact as well as providing information and updates—as a one-stop approach for all those who suffer flooding, from wherever it may be. That includes problems with surface water and drains. This is probably a longer-term aspiration. It is important first to establish local partnerships and secure local agreement between the agency and the other bodies involved, which will be assisted through the development of an effective emergency plan in the light of last autumn's experiences.

  359
  I am also prepared to consider the institutional arrangements for flood and coastal defence more generally in the light of the findings of the review of funding arrangements and the financial management and policy review of the Environment Agency. Both reviews are currently under way and will be reporting their findings this year. That will be an opportunity for considering a range of issues, including the funding and structural mechanisms, relating to the way in which we carry out flood and coastal defence in this country.
  My hon. Friend referred to the willingness of local authorities to carry out inspections of flood defences and critical ordinary water courses. He referred to his parliamentary question and the answer that I gave him. The long list of local authorities that had not, for various reasons, responded in the kind of detail that we expected, was very disappointing.
  There is an associated high-level target that authorities should identify flood defences for which they are responsible. It is possible that some of the authorities on the list do not have any such responsibilities. However, these inspections are required under our high-level targets and the approach was agreed at a meeting with senior members of the Local Government Association. There is a related high-level target for the Environment Agency to report on flood defence inspections and its assessment of flood risk. That is expected shortly. I have asked the agency's chairman to ensure that the report provides a full analysis of the inspection problems. That includes an analysis of the response that we have had from local authorities so far. I want to assure my hon. Friend that we take this matter seriously.
  My hon. Friend touched generally on the economic appraisal. He knows how that operates in relation to the methodology that we use in determining priority scores for where the resources should go for flood defence schemes. We cannot get away from the fact that there will always be more demand for spending on flood and coastal defence than can be provided in any one year. In that respect, it is right and proper to have a mechanism that identifies priority. Therefore, those with the most need get the schemes put in place as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Todd: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. However, he will need to think about two issues—the scale of the total pot available for carrying out the schemes, as that will obviously influence the number of priority schemes that are available, and the precise mechanism that is used to determine the cost and benefit of each scheme, which I referred to in my speech.
  Mr. Morley: I accept those points. We are reviewing the scoring system and have just started a formal consultation process on the way in which the system works. We will, of course, reflect carefully on the comments that we receive from people who respond to the consultation.
  Funding is, in many ways, the crux of the issue, as it determines what can be provided. I am glad to say that the Government have increased funding for flood and coastal defence as part of the 2000 comprehensive spending review. Following the devastating floods of last autumn, which in many cases were the worst for more than
  360
  100 years, we made available an additional £51 million over the next four years. That was announced last November. That money was mainly to accelerate river defence schemes and to allow catchment flood management plans to proceed. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's welcome for that.
  We have also put together a package of £11.6 million to fund the Environment Agency's exceptional costs in responding to last year's floods and carrying out emergency repairs. That sum is available in the current financial year, so that the agency can deal with those matters. In total, more than £400 million a year is being spent on flood and coastal defence in England. That sum is not far away from the proposal for the appropriate sum made in the independent assessment commissioned by the Ministry.
  Mr. Todd: I was about to ask about the relationship with the survey carried out by MAFF. Although there is obviously some relationship, the amount set aside is substantially less than the amount identified in that survey. Furthermore, many of the local authorities which replied so unfavourably—as my hon. Friend and I agree—referred to resource problems in carrying out their responsibility. Finally, the survey on the state of our current defences showed—as I said—that 40 per cent. of those defences fall into the "fair or below" category. That demonstrates a huge shortfall merely in the routine maintenance of our existing defences.
  Mr. Morley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right again, although many of the levies raised by the regional flood defence committees, which are responsible for the day-to-day management and upkeep of flood defences, were specifically for this financial year so that some of those maintenance issues could be addressed.
  There is considerable regional disparity. Some regions are extremely good but in others, such as Yorkshire, a high percentage of defences are classified as "fair" or "poor". However, I do not want to give the impression that to classify a defence as "fair" means that it is in immediate risk of falling down—that is not the case. Furthermore, only a small number of defences are classified as "poor". Nevertheless, we need to deal with those issues.
  I accept that we need to consider whether we are committing enough resources for flood and coastal defence overall. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a study is under way to examine whether there should be even further increases in investment in flood and coastal defence. That study is linked to research that we have commissioned into the possible effects of climate change.
  If there is a change in weather patterns due to climate change, with more extremes of weather of the kind that we experienced during the past winter, we must plan ahead for that. That means committing additional resources and examining what they should be, as well as considering the implications of the possible impact of changed weather patterns. That is being done.
  We are also reviewing the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence—the mechanisms, rather than the global sums. That report is due to be published in September. I can thus reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of work is being done on flood defence.

  361
  We are holding this debate on one of the warmest days of the year thus far; the sun is shining so perhaps this is not the kind of day on which people think about storms, floods and coasts, but we have to keep planning for them. I assure my hon. Friend that the issue is constantly in the back of my mind. At MAFF, we constantly think ahead about a long-term strategic approach, such as that recommended by the Select Committee. Of course, when I see the sun shining at present, all I can think of is that the foot and mouth virus is clearing up, so that cheers me up no end.
  My hon. Friend mentioned soft defence. He might be interested to know that, as part of the response to the autumn floods, I have approved the appointment of an independent expert engineer from the Institution of Civil Engineers. His remit is to consider innovative ideas that might inform the way that we approach flood defence schemes. I met the committee concerned and made it very clear to its members that they should not feel restrained by current or traditional thinking in relation to hard engineering, and that they should embrace the idea of soft defence as part of sustainable flood and coastal defence schemes. Indeed, a combination of the two might be used. I am sure that the members of the committee do not feel restrained in their thinking.
  362
  My hon. Friend made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents tonight. I understand their concern, and his concern, to see progress and to see the results of the investments that we are making and the reviews that we are conducting in relation to flood defence. I am pleased that work is being done in relation to the sewerage problem, which was one of the key factors in the flooding of the area. The reports will be published in the course of this year, and I am sure that there will be a continuing debate about the nature of our flood defence schemes and the appropriate level of commitment.
  As a Government, we recognise that we may be moving into a period of climate change. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said many times that the floods that we experience should be taken as a wake-up call to the dangers of global warming and climate change. I very much hope that President Bush heeds that wake-up call in relation to the need for a global approach to climate change.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that there are implications for investment for the long term, and that we will make that investment for the long term, for the defence of his constituents and the people of this country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Creative Industries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): We warmly welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to highlight one of the best success stories in the United Kingdom. Until fairly recently, it has gone unsung, but thanks to the efforts of those in the creative industries, assisted by a supportive Government programme of action, it is now more widely recognised.
The term "creative industries" is now more widely used and understood. For too long, the view of our traditional cultural industries—those based on our long tradition of excellence in fields as diverse as literature, music, art and live performance—was that they were nice but not essential. They were often seen as elitist. It was too easy to dismiss their importance in enriching our quality of life, reflecting the vibrancy of our multicultural society and providing social cohesion and opportunity, but that analysis was wrong. If we consider what lies at the core of those industries, it is surely intellectual property.
We can all get our heads around widgets, but are we so comfortable with concepts and ideas? That is what we are talking about today. As we look at the shifts in our economy from manufacturing in the 19th century, to services in the 20th century and knowledge and information in the 21st century, one constant strand has been the UK's strength in original creativity. We are well known for our innovation and inventiveness, but we have not been so good at developing and maximising the potential benefits in the value chain. Too often, other countries have reaped the benefits of our original creativity
Our need to maximise the benefits of our creativity lies behind our effort to support the creative industries—those industries that have original creativity at their heart and the potential to maximise revenue and generate employment through the exploitation of intellectual property. There was no clear strategy for engaging with those industries before we came to government. That is why the Prime Minister invited the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), to set up the creative industries taskforce.
The taskforce's first job was to raise awareness of the importance of those industries, and to measure their contribution to the UK economy. Its findings in 1998 were updated earlier this year, and the figures that emerged surprised us all. The industries generate revenues of about £112 billion, export earnings of some £10.3 billion, provide employment for some 1.3 million people, account for more than 5 per cent. of GDP and,
140WH
perhaps most important, are growing at twice the rate of the economy as a whole. They will be the source of many of tomorrow's new jobs, many of which will be highly skilled. They are industries in which the UK has a strong international reputation. We have a rich cultural heritage, and a reputation for excellence not only in the performing arts but in design and computer games. Moreover, in an information age, we have the added advantage that English is the first language of the internet.
For all those reasons, creative industries matter. That is why the Government have taken steps to work with them, to understand the challenges that they face and to develop solutions. It quickly became apparent that better careers advice on those industries was essential. We therefore set up a creative industries higher education forum to ensure better relations between education and the workplace, and opened a web portal, which provides access to information and advice on a wide range of intellectual property issues and averages 85,000 hits a week. We have undertaken more focused export promotion support and Co-ordinated the efforts of many Departments and Government agencies to improve awareness at national, regional and local levels of the importance of the creative industries.
In the English regions, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, there is growing recognition of the importance of the creative industries for wealth and job creation, of their contribution to social inclusion and regeneration strategies and of the way in which they foster creative talent and encourage those who are excluded to enter mainstream economic activity. The creative industries also make a substantial contribution to our regional economies. In London, they employ more people than does the manufacturing sector, and, in Manchester, they employ more than construction does.
We want to put creativity at the heart of education to encourage our children to develop their talents. That is why, last July, we allocated £40 million for the creative partnerships initiative to bring together schools, arts and other creative organisations and to provide improved opportunities for every schoolchild in 16 deprived areas. Our culture online initiative will help to open up arts and culture to new audiences. It aims to give schoolchildren and lifelong learners easy access to museums, galleries, arts organisations and libraries. Information is presented alongside explanatory materials to enrich the learning experience.
The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts also actively contributes to the development of the creative industries. NESTA supports networking and business advice events for the new generation of cultural entrepreneurs in partnership with the Institute of Contemporary Arts and The Lighthouse in Scotland. It is helping to nurture the creative skills of pupils in a host of different areas, such as design and technology, animation, computer games, engineering, product design, drama online, music performance and fashion, to name but a few.
The contribution of the creative industries is quite astonishing. Clusters have sprung up throughout the United Kingdom, often around university towns, such as Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and Bristol. One example from Bristol clearly illustrates how fast these industries have developed. Aardman Animations produces "Wallace and Gromit" and recently produced

141WH
its first full-length feature film, "Chicken Run", which was very successful. Aardman Animations started 10 years ago with about 15 people and now employs about 500. That is why the Government have taken steps to make people aware of the potential of the creative industries and to do what we can to assist them.
2.37 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I hope that I do not appear too uncharitable when I say that Conservative Members are a little surprised that the Government have chosen not to discuss tourism in a debate on one of the areas of responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am equally surprised that, given the opportunity to debate the creative industries, no Liberal Democrat Members have bothered to grace us with their presence. We all understand why attendance is thin, and I will not detain hon. Members too long. However, one or two matters must be aired.
I suspected that the Government had called the debate to discuss the document "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", which was published on 20 March. I have read it twice, and it appears to be something of a wish list. However, its intentions and objectives are right, although we do not agree with all the recommendations.
Focusing my remarks on what the Minister said, I want to talk about two important areas. The first is the regulatory and business environment in which these important creative industries have to operate. The Minister made clear reference to that in her opening remarks. The business community, of which the creative industries are a part, has been swathed in red tape and suffered increased regulatory burdens during the past four years. Today the British Chambers of Commerce has issued a challenge for the election to the leaders of the three main parties on the £15 billion of extra regulatory burdens that have been placed on business. Creative businesses, just like others, are affected by those burdens.
I recommend the British Music Rights website to the Minister. The site includes a detailed review of the regulatory burdens affecting the music industry, in which music publishers, composers and songwriters tend to be small to medium-sized enterprises. Those businesses feel particularly aggrieved about the need to understand and comply with existing and new requirements on employment tax, national insurance and data protection rules. Various other taxes affect them, including withholding tax and taxation of intellectual property rights royalties, although, in fairness, they appreciate the current moves to simplify that matter. Many of those who design websites will be affected by IR35. That is one good example of the regulatory burden that the creative industries face.
Another large tome on the subject is the creative industries' mapping document. All Members of Parliament should examine it, because I found it fascinating to see the extent to which those industries have grown in the past few years. That augurs well for the future and highlights the importance of the design industry in the UK. I declare a past interest, in that I was once the director of a graphic design business. We know
142WH
that fashion design is an important sector, and the design of goods generally is one of the main focuses of current arguments about parallel trading.
The regulation and business cost implications of any proposals to permit parallel trade worldwide must be considered. We understand and sympathise fully with the need to ensure that consumers are not ripped off. However, in the past two days the British Brands Group has written to me—I am not sure whether this letter has gone to all MPs—pointing out that, contrary to what the press said at the time, the recent and welcome price comparison study published by the Department of Trade and Industry does not make the case that changing trademark laws to allow worldwide parallel trade would reduce prices to consumers. It would shift profits from manufacturers and designers to traders and could make prospects for the UK textile industry, which is already in decline, considerably worse. I know that the Minister's constituency has a long-standing interest in that area.
The UK textile industry is increasingly a high-value, added-value industry and is dependent on creative design. Designers and manufacturers of high-quality products can ill afford additional cost burdens, and they can ill afford to lose their intellectual property rights. The Minister rightly said that those involve difficult concepts, because very often they appear to be intangible. However, we must protect those rights. This debate is a good opportunity for us to place those concerns on the record.
The second issue is skills. That, too, has copyright implications. Thanks to the British Music Rights website, which I commend to the Minister and to all hon. Members who take the trouble to read the Hansard report of this short debate, we know that many of Europe's young people know how to play software games, download music and surf the net. However, do they realise that they could be creators, songwriters or website designers, and use their leisure skills to obtain employment and income? It is vital for Europe to convert such talent into productivity and to equip the next generation with the skills to create content and to exploit it.
The key is to re-evaluate approaches to intellectual property policy, particularly to copyright. The culture that regards free content on the net as a legitimate consumer right cannot be allowed to continue. It might appear to be free it the point of consumption, but it cannot be free in the pirated sense. Everyone in the music industry welcomed the decision in the United States courts in the case of Napster. We have also seen the adoption of the European Parliament's amendments to the copyright directive, clarifying the restrictions on private copying. Copyright is important. It enables creators and users of intellectual property to support themselves and their businesses by their artistic work, and creative entrepreneurs to generate profits to reinvest in tomorrow's creators. Those were clear objectives of the Government's 10-year preview.
The Green Paper rightly emphasises the significant role that education and training play in nurturing and fostering creative talent. Many of the creative industries have identified and complained of a serious skills gap. Although we agree on the objective, it is a cause of grave concern that creative activities such as art, music and technical design have been marginalised by

143WH
an over-prescriptive national curriculum. I shall not prey on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by outlining our alternative education policy. However, I believe that children should be exposed to the arts and to culture from an early age and that, as teenagers, they should have the opportunity to see to what extent a career in the creative industries might be right for them. Proposals for widening participation and access must focus on the understanding and appreciation not just of culture and the arts but—and I am not sure that the Green Paper addresses this—of the creative activities that underpin so much of the success of business and commerce: design, graphic design, new technology, advertising and publishing.
The Minister mentioned the culture online initiative. She knows that we have considerable concerns about that, and we look forward to discussing the issue again in the new Parliament—should we be the Government, the discussion would be relatively short. We have always recognised that the creative industries are supremely important. It is clear that in the century ahead they will assume ever greater importance in the domestic and global economies. The key role of government is to create the business, cultural and artistic environment in which creative industries can flourish; the Conservative party is committed to that.
2.48 pm
Janet Anderson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his contribution. I too am surprised and disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have not seen fit to send a representative to the debate. Like the hon. Gentleman and me the Government recognise how important the creative industries are. He referred to some of the regulatory and business burdens on those industries. He will, of course, know that the Government set up the better regulation taskforce to
144WH
keep a close watch on how regulation was affecting the industries in question, which include the creative industries.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the views of British Music Rights. It was to keep in touch with the music industry that we set up the music industry forum, which meets regularly under my chairmanship and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that intellectual property is a key aspect of this issue. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and a group in the Department, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, has been studying it. We shall continue to monitor the situation and to do what we can to reduce burdens on the relevant industries.
The Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years" looks forward to a future in which individual creative talent is, from childhood, given the support that it needs to flourish; in which artists and cultural institutions are freed from bureaucratic controls; and in which freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture is available to all. The Green Paper emphasises the importance of childhood encounters with the arts, both at home and, of course, at school. It includes pledges to give every school pupil the chance to work with creative professionals and organisations, by extending the creative partnership scheme so that it operates nationwide; to give every child in primary school who wants it the chance to learn to play a musical instrument—as a pianist I welcome that; and to bring every public library in the country online by the end of the year.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the Green Paper and I look forward to further discussions and debates with him when we return in a few weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Three o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Walworth Church Commissioners Estate
  Ms Harman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the future of the community of the tenants of the Walworth Church Commissioners estate in Southwark. [160749]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  As my right hon. Friend will know, the Church Commissioners are consulting widely with interested parties over future letting policy in respect of a number of their residential estates, including that at Walworth in south London. The proposals forming the basis of consultation are, first, that the Commissioners will carry out a programme of improvements to the estates, and secondly, that over time, and for new tenants only, they will move to a mixture of affordable and market rents with the former being offered in future to key public service providers working in the local community.

  That consultation is still in progress and includes seeking the views of residents groups, including the newly formed residents association on the Walworth estate. We have presented the proposals to some members of the association's committee and have been invited to give the same presentation at the inaugural meeting of the association on 15 May.

  No decision will be taken until consultation has been concluded and the Commissioners have had a chance to consider the views of those affected by and close to the proposals.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, what the average rent level in tenancies is in the Walworth Church Commissioners estate in Southwark; and what assessment he has made of the average market rent levels in the Walworth area. [160748]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Properties at the Church Commissioners Walworth estate are let on a mixture of fair rents and assured tenancies, the former being applicable in the case of Rent Act tenancies granted before 1988.
  The average rent levels (as at 4 May 2001) on the Commissioners Walworth estate in both cases, as compared with the equivalent estimated market rental values, are set out as follows:

  Type of property

  Fair rent (£per week)

  Assured rent (£ per month)

  Market rent estimates (£per month)

  Bedsit

  47.50

  279

  434

  1 bedroom flat

  53.00

  337

  650

  2 bedroom flat

  63.50

  419

  869

  3 bedroom flat

  68.00

  485

  1,210

  250W

  Type of property

  Fair rent (£per week)

  Assured rent (£per month)

  Market rent estimates(£per month)

  4 bedroom flat

  70.00

  530

  1,500

  1 bedroom ½ cottage

  53.50

  345

  534

  2 bedroom ½ cottage

  50.00

  406

  760

  1 bedroom cottage

  65.50

  343

  800

  2 bedroom cottage

  70.50

  399

  869

  3 bedroom cottage

  81.50

  433

  1,086

  The total number of properties involved is 618.

  Rent levels vary according to the condition of the property and there are too few properties within some categories to provide very meaningful averages but this has been done so far as is possible. There is only one two bedroom half cottage rented on a fair rent, it is unmodernised and hence the rent level is shown as less than the average charged for a one bedroom half cottage.

  Market rents were estimated by a local property agent at the end of 2000.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158545]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have travelled abroad in an official capacity on three occasions between these dates. On each occasion one of my special advisers has accompanied me.

  The requirements of the Civil Service Management Code were met in each case.

DEFENCE

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedure whereby military equipment which has become surplus to requirements is listed and described in order to give museums an opportunity to bid for the items, indicating when the existing procedure was instituted, how many artefacts have been so advertised to museums and how many bids have been(a) received and (b) accepted; and what changes are planned in the procedure. [160350]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are established procedures, introduced in March 1999, for the six principal service museums, the regimental and corps museums, the Imperial war museum, the science museum, the national maritime museum and museums sponsored by local authorities that have a clear defence interest allowing them to identify equipment that they may wish to acquire. If equipment identified is declared as surplus and gifting or loan is not an option, museums are invited to bid by the Disposal Services Agency (DSA) by means of competitive tender. Currently the DSA has 76 museums on their database covering interests such as aircraft and armoured vehicles. There are no changes planned in the procedure.
  251W
  The DSA conducts most of its sales, however, via its marketing contractors and the museums are, of course, at liberty to approach these direct to purchase equipments. Details of equipments held are available through the DSA website and the subsequent links to its contractors.

  The full number of tenders issued to museums and the number of museums successful with their tenders can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, for aircraft alone, two tenders have been issued to 66 museums since March 1999 and seven museums have been successful.

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158558]

  Mr. Hoon
  Departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity on six occasions during the period 31 March 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  There are no non-departmental special advisers.

  Fylingdales/Menwith Hill
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent in each year since 1990 on upgrading the communications monitoring bases at(a) Menwith Hill and (b) Fylingdales; and from what budget line the money has been drawn. [160711]

  Mr. Hoon
  RAF Menwith Hill is an integral part of a worldwide communications network, which supports UK, US and NATO interests. Information on detailed operations at RAF Menwith Hill, including funding issues, is withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the ground of national security.

  The primary function of RAF Fylingdales is to provide the UK and US with early warning of a ballistic missile launch. It is not a communications monitoring base. The last upgrade of the early warning facilities took place in the early 1990s when the old "golf balls", which had become obsolete and difficult to maintain, were replaced with a modern solid state phased array radar. The UK Government contributed a total of £48 million to the costs of this upgrade, from the headquarters Strike Command budget. A yearly breakdown of this figure does not exist.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exchanges of information have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Administration in respect of(a) Fylingdales and (b) Menwith Hill since May 1997. [160808]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK and US regularly discuss the existing early warning and communication functions that RAF Fylingdales and RAF Menwith Hill respectively have performed for many years.

  Defence Systems
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) people employed by his Department and (b) consultants working for his Department have (i) worked
  252W
  in the United States and (ii) co-operated with United States experts on defence systems deployable in space since May 1997. [160809]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not held centrally. Due to the wide range of defence applications which rely on the deployment of assets in space, it would be extremely difficult to derive the required information and, were it to be attempted, it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Security Policy
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make in assessment of the report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organisation, presented to the Chairman of the Committee of Armed Services of the US House of Representatives on 11 January, in respect of the aspects which have implications for United Kingdom security policy. [160812]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are aware of the report and await the US Department of Defense response to it. The outer space treaty places important limitations on military activity in space without entirely prohibiting it. We do not want to see a general prohibition on military use of space because, for example, as confirmed in the Strategic Defence Review, we perceive a continuing needs for secure satellite communications for the armed forces. We do not support the further consideration of the use of outer space by the conference on disarmament in Geneva.

  National Missile Defense
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will invite hon. Members to join the delegation to meet the defence envoys due to visit the United Kingdom to discuss nation al missile defense, announced by President Bush on 1 May. [160810]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

  Appointments (Age Limit)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158128]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. Consistent with this, there are no age limits on appointments made to public bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, other than to the advisory committee on conscientious objectors. Appointments to this body are part-time judicial posts, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and therefore abide by the Lord Chancellor's Department's general policy of normally considering for appointment only those aged between 35 and 62. The upper limit is set to take account of the retirement age for judicial office holders, which for part-time office holders is 65.

  E-mail
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department is revising its internal guidance to staff on writing and distributing
  253W
  e-mails; and if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's current internal guidance on e-mail procedures. [152053]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current Ministry of Defence (MOD) corporate policy and guidance concerning the use of e-mail is contained in two documents: Defence Council instruction (DCI) 156/00, which sets out policy and guidance on the use of e-mail, and DCI 272/00, which concerns conduct matters relating to the use of IT systems, including e-mail communications. In addition, most of MOD's IT systems have local operating procedures that may provide additional guidance for users.

  MOD is in the process of producing a single publication covering all aspects of electronic working, including the use of e-mail. This will consolidate existing policy and guidance, update this in the light of our growing experience of electronic working and of recent legislation, as well as provide advice on best practice. Our aim is to improve MOD's working processes and the quality of life at work for our employees, as we 11 as promote the efficient and effective management of information in defence.

  I am arranging for copies of MOD's current policy documents on the use of e-mail, DCIs 156/00 and 272/00, to be placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what baseline data are being used for monitoring purposes for each of the genetically modified trial test sites at Mathry, Pembrokeshire; [157572]

  (2) what period elapsed between the baseline assessment date and subsequent assessment of the sites for genetically modified farmscale trials at Mathry, Pembrokeshire. [157573]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]The design of the farmscale evaluations experiment does not require a pre-experiment assessment of baseline data other than pre-sowing seed sampling, which gives an indication of the potential for weeds to grow in the field. This is because the experiment is designed to compare effects of herbicide use between the two sides of each experimental field. One half is randomly selected and planted with the GM crop, while the other half is planted with the non-GM equivalent crop. This design allows for the effects of the herbicides on wildlife in the two halves of the field to be assessed more accurately than would be possible by comparison with wildlife in the crop before the start of the experiment.

  The purpose of the farmscale evaluations is to examine whether there are any differences in the diversity and abundance of farmland wildlife associated with the use of GM herbicide tolerant crops with the herbicides to which they are tolerant, as compared with equivalent non-GM crops. We are also measuring the effects of geneflow. The wildlife found in crop fields is affected by factors such as the vegetation and crop type. Wildlife present in the bare field before sowing or in a previous, different, crop the
  254W
  year before will not be the same as that to be expected in the experimental crop. Measurements of differences in wildlife between a pre-trial audit and within the experimental crop during the experiment would therefore not allow the effects of the herbicide to be measured.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact on United Kingdom honey production of GM crops. [158504]

  Mr. Meacher
  Only extremely small amounts of GM pollen (less than one part per million) might arise in honey as a result of the present plantings of GM crops. This is considerably below the 1 per cent. threshold for labelling produce as containing GM material set out in the Novel Foods Regulations. The pollen from these particular crops has also been determined by Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment not to harm bees. Therefore, we believe that the current cultivation of GM crops should not affect honey production any more than conventional farming.

  However, I am aware that some retailers have asked their honey suppliers to move hives away from GM crop trial sites and this may have an impact on production. There is therefore an important issue of liability for any damage to another farmer's, or in this case, beekeeper's ability to sell his produce. I believe that we need a liability provision in law whereby a GM farmer or any other type of farmer is made statutorily liable for any damage caused to neighbouring farmers or producers. We are working on a range of options for possible liability provisions of this type, in respect of any damage from GM crops. In the meantime, an individual who has suffered loss may be able to commence an action in the courts. Each case will turn on its own facts and the question of who is liable will be determined in the light of all the circumstances.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he has taken to implement the inspector's recommendation at the public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road that the Lichfield and Hatherton canal restoration should not be compromised by the toll motorway; [160126]

  (2) if he will provide match funding for the Lichfield and Hatherton canal restoration trusts to ensure restoration work can be completed during the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road. [160125]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State's decision on the inspectors report into the Birmingham northern relief road (BNRR) scheme was published on 27 July 1997. That letter placed obligations on the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd. (MEL), in respect of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals. MEL is required to facilitate the full restoration works for the canals, waiving any consequential loss of tolls that these works may occasion. MEL is also required to provide, at its expense, the foundations for an aqueduct to carry the Lichfield canal over the BNRR and a pipe for an interim supply if the Lichfield and Hatherton canals restoration trust considers this necessary. MEL will meet these obligations in full.
  255W
  Active discussions regarding the funding of the crossing are ongoing between the various parties involved. I will write to my hon. Friend once those discussions are complete.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the principle of reputational externalities is applied to the assessment of bidders for the London Underground PPP. [160530]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: In recognition of the size of the London Underground PPPs and the potential for alternative funding sources, the financial analysis of the PPP bids is based around a number of different scenarios, including ones that allow for a public sector bond-financed London Underground. Where appropriate, an adjustment representing the "reputational externality" is included in some of these scenarios. This is designed to capture the impact additional public sector borrowing would have on the Government's reputation for prudence and therefore on the risk premium demanded on sterling-denominated securities.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations Transport for London has made on the policy of preferred bidder status in relation to the London Underground; what control Transport for London will have over the preferred bidder when London Underground comes under the responsibility of the London Mayor; what aspects agreed prior to the transfer will be the sole responsibility of the contractor; and if he will make a statement. [160801]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand that Bob Kiley, Commissioner of Transport for London, wrote to Sir Malcolm Bates, then chairman of London Transport, on 27 April 2001 giving TFL's views on LT's proposed decision to select preferred bidders for the two deep tube PPP competitions. On 2 May, the LT board—after giving full and proper consideration to TFL's views—selected preferred bidders for these contracts. The preferred bidder for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines infrastructure company is Tube Lines. The preferred bidder for the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria Lines infrastructure company is Metronet.

  On 4 May. my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he had reached agreement with Bob Kiley on a way forward which will provide a secure basis for progressing the PPP. As a result of this agreement, Mr. Kiley will be appointed LT chairman and will lead negotiations with the bidders aimed at finding a way to meet his concerns on unified management within the framework of the PPP and the current procurement. The way forward protects the key objectives of achieving safety and value for money. The details of this agreement are set out in a memorandum of agreement, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the preferred bidder for London Underground and the public sector comparator; if the preferred bidder has been informed that the comparator must be favourable when the bid is assessed; what information is being given to the preferred bidder about 256W
  the terms of the comparator; when it is expected to make the terms of the comparator public; and what his policy is in the event that, the bidder receives an unfavourable assessment under the comparator. [160800]

  Mr. Hill
  The PPPs for London Underground are about delivering best value for both tube passengers and taxpayers. As such we expect the LT board to sign PPP contracts only if they are satisfied that they represent value for money. They will be guided in this decision by the results of a rigorously designed and constructed public sector comparator. This has been made clear to both the preferred bidders for the deep-tube contracts.

  A paper describing the methodology used by LT in constructing the comparator was placed in the House Library on 30 March 2000. This paper has been made available to bidders. I understand that LT also intends to make the results of the comparator publicly available once contracts have been signed. To publish the results of the comparator earlier than this would undermine LT's commercial position.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what negotiations he intends to have over the next month with leaders of the RMT trade union concerning strike action on the London Underground. [160718]

  Mr. Hill
  None This is an operational matter for the union and London Underground to resolve between them.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much London Transport has spent to date on consultancy costs for London Underground public-private partnership. [161063]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand from London Transport that its expenditure on external consultants from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 31 March 2001, for work on the PPP and restructuring of London Underground, was £76.7 million.

  Capital Projects (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the capital projects agreed in Shrewsbury and Atcham to improve(a) bus services, (b) train services, (c) cycle routes and (d) other public transport investments since 1 May 1997 and their cost; and if he will make a statement. [160511]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The local transport plan (LTP) submitted by Shropshire county council in July 2000 set out a strategy for five years to spend on:
  integrated transport schemes (e.g. measures to improve local transport, reduce congestion, and promote walking and road safety);local road maintenance and bridge strengthening schemes;major public transport and road schemes costing over £5 million (e.g. integrated town centre improvements, new bus corridors, and local road schemes).
  Authorities have discretion about which transport schemes to fund, in line with the Objectives, priorities and targets identified in the LTP, so it is not possible to list each individual project. However, I am pleased to say that over the five years from 1997–98 to 2001–02 the integrated transport plan for Shrewsbury has been allocated £3.86 million.

  Access to Hastings Study
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the advice obtained by the Countryside Agency on the handling of the Access to Hastings study. [160899]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand that the Countryside Agency has commissioned a review of the access to Hastings multi-modal study. The agency is currently analysing the findings of the review and copies have been made available to my officials. This report will be made available in line with our open government policy.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the regulations which he plans to make under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in order to bring it into force; and what the target dates for making each set of regulations are. [160816]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 187W.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when paragraphs 6 and 7 of schedule 7 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will come into effect. [160751]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Paragraph 6 of schedule 7 will insert a new section 34A into the Road Traffic Act 1988. This will enable a defence to a charge of driving a vehicle on certain classes of rights of way and land not forming part of a road, brought under section 34 of the 1988 Act (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), to be raised in limited circumstances. The effect of section 34A will be to restrict those who can put forward evidence to rebut a presumption created by section 34 that the right of way shown on the definitive map carries only the rights applicable to that class of way.

  Provision has been made in section 34A for regulations to be made specifying additional circumstances in which such evidence can be put forward. We hope to consult on proposals for such regulations later this year.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of footpaths are open in each local authority area in England; which authorities have applied for grant money to help with reopening of paths; how much money they have received; and if he will publish this information each week. [160815]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 3 May 2001.Official Report, column 754W. The Countryside Agency's website (http://www.countryside.gov.uk/footandmouth/) provides information about the reopening of rights of way for every local highway authority in England, including the percentage of the length of rights of way open in each area, where this information is available. The agency's website is continually updated.
  258W
  I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 37W, and to my Department's press release on the same day which listed the percentage of public rights of way open for each county council area in England.

  The Countryside Agency has so far received 47 applications for grants to help meet the costs of reopening paths, and has made offers of grant in response to these applications. A list of those authorities which have applied for grants and the amount of grant offered by the Countryside Agency are set out in the table. I shall provide further information on progress with the grant scheme in due course.

  Rights of Way and Access Land Recovery Fund: Summary of applications received and grant offers as at 9 May 2001

  Region/Authority

  Grant offer(£)

  North West

  Cheshire CC

  28,875

  Oldham

  12,925

  Lake District National Park Authority

  45,000

  Blackpool

  7,013

  Lancashire

  7,026

  North East

  North Tyneside

  9,000

  Darlington BC

  7,500

  Northumberland CC

  20,353

  Durham CC

  52,155

  Northumberland National park

  15,750

  City of Sunderland

  4,800

  South West

  Wiltshire CC

  30,599

  Cornwall CC

  44,000

  Devon CC

  36,600

  Dorset CC

  35,625

  Dartmoor National Park

  33,765

  North Somerset

  10,500

  South East and London

  Isle of Wight Council

  22,500

  Buckinghamshire CC

  24,450

  Kent CC

  14,438

  Oxfordshire CC

  7,500

  West Berkshire CC

  10,594

  Royal Borough Windsor and Maidenhead

  11,625

  East of England

  Cambridge CC

  21,638

  Hertfordshire

  37,984

  Norfolk CC

  49,500

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley MBC

  27,313

  Yorkshire Dales National Park and Craven DC

  25,122

  North Yorkshire Moors National Park

  11,475

  Calderdale MBC

  26,060

  North Yorkshire CC etc.

  24,776

  Doncaster MBC

  10,275

  City of York

  11,625

  East Riding CC

  17,262

  Hambleton DC (via North Yorks CC)

  3,582

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire CC

  45,000

  Shropshire CC

  25,875

  Staffordshire CC

  45,000

  Telford and Wrekin CC

  5,000

  Worcestershire CC

  32,250

  Herefordshire CC

  45,000

  East Midlands

  259W

  Rights of Way and Access Land Recovery Fund: Summary of applications received and grant offers as at 9 May 2001

  Region/Authority

  Grant offer(£)

  Leicestershire CC

  34,000

  Northamptonshire CC

  8,588

  Derbyshire CC

  45,000

  Peak District National Park

  25,275

  Nottinghamshire CC

  13,986

  Rutland CC

  10,838

  Total

  1,095,017

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of senior grade civil servants in his Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week; and if he will make a statement. [160887]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no senior grade civil servants in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions who have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week.

  Regional Impact Assessments
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 313–15W, on regional impact assessments, if the criteria taken into account by the regional co-ordination unit included (a) the

  Reviews of regional planning guidance (RPG)

  Region

  Draft RPG advice to Secretary of State

  Public examination into RPG

  Target for issue of revised RPG

  Eastern (RPG6)1

  August 19982

  February 1999

  November 20003

  North East (RPG1)

  December 1999

  June/July 2000

  Autumn 2001

  East Midlands (RPG8)

  November 1999

  June 2000

  Summer 2001

  South East (RPG9)4

  December 1998

  May 1999

  March 20013

  South West (RPG10)

  August 1999

  March/April 2000

  Summer 2001

  West Midlands (RPG 11)

  Autumn 2001

  Early 2002

  Winter 2002–03

  Yorkshire and the Humber (RPG12)

  October 1999

  June/July 2000

  Summer 2001

  North West (RPG13)

  June/July 2000

  February 2001

  End 2001

  1The entry against Eastern Region is for RPG6 covering East Anglia. Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire are covered by the review of the RPG for the greater South East region

  2Issued for consultation by GO

  3Issued

  4The review of RPG9 covers London, the Government Office area for the South East and Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire

  Notes:

  1. Last updated 9 May 2000

  2. Instead of non-statutory Regional Planning Guidance in London there will be a statutory spatial development strategy (SDS) for London following the establishment of the GLA. Hence there is no separate entry for London. The draft SDS is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in early summer 2001. The public examination is due in early 2002 and the aim is to publish the final SDS in autumn 2002

  Waste Management
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will respond to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affair's Committee's Fifth report of Session 2000–01, HC 36, on Delivering Sustainable Waste Management. [160820]
  260W
  availability of previously developed urban land from region to region and (b) other considerations of environmental capacity. [160795]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The criteria used by the regional co-ordination unit does not specifically include these considerations, which properly fall to the Departments and others putting forward proposals.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 313–15W, on regional impact assessments, if the large number of other initiatives referred to included (a) regional selective assistance and (b) funding for the regional development agencies. [160797]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The regional co-ordination unit has not assessed any initiatives which have included regional selective assistance or funding for the regional development agencies. The initiatives looked at were proposals for new area based activity.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue new regional planning guidance. [160842]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is a rolling programme of review for regional planning guidance (RPG) and the table indicates the current position for each region.

  The examination in public for the north-west RPG concluded in February 2001 and the panel's report is due next month. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consult on proposed changes then proceed to issue final RPG. It is hoped that this process can be completed by the end of the year.

  Mr. Meacher
  It is normal practice to respond to a Select Committee report within two months of its publication. However, because of the forthcoming dissolution of this Parliament, the Government will be unable to respond within the normal time scale. It will now be for the incoming Administration to determine the terms of the response to the Committee's report.
  261W

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the funding programmes for social inclusion for which his Department is responsible that can be accessed by(a) national sports bodies and (b) local clubs and communities. [161009]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions manages a number of relevant funding streams, which I outline below. However, it should be noted that in all cases individual applications for funding will be judged on their own merits, and there are no DETR programmes which will guarantee support to particular organisations or projects.

  The neighbourhood renewal community chests programme (£50 million over three years) will provide small grants to formal and informal local community groups in the 88 most deprived areas of England to support community self-help and mutual support activity. Introductory information has recently been published in the consultation document on funding community groups produced by the active community unit in the Home Office.

  The community empowerment fund (£36 million over three years) will support community and voluntary sector involvement in local strategic partnerships (LSPs) in the 88 most deprived areas of England. Introductory information has been published by DETR as an annex to the LSP guidance.

  National sports bodies would not be eligible for funding through either of these programmes.

  The new deal for communities programme (£1.97 billion over 10 years) makes funding available to support regeneration in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. Projects to invest in local community centres and sporting facilities have featured in many of the partnerships' plans for turning around their neighbourhoods, and partnerships should also engage with all the relevant local organisations, including community groups and sports clubs.

  The single regeneration budget (SRB) programme (£5.6 billion covering six rounds) could help the area or local branch of a national sports body the costs of, for instance, setting up a local training facility that would benefit members of the local community. Local clubs and communities could also be eligible for funding through the SRB programme.

  The European regional development fund (ERDF)—which is concerned primarily with economic regeneration—could also provide limited funding for local clubs and communities in relevant areas for capacity building projects, provided sports facilities could demonstrate a wider benefit (for instance, boosting local tourism) and therefore be considered good value. Details of local and regional programmes can be obtained from the Government offices for the regions.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects 262W
  to receive the report of the Strategic Rail Authority into the proposed Central Railway project; and if he will publish that report. [160818]

  Mr. Hill
  I am confident that the Strategic Rail Authority will complete the review that it has commissioned into Central Railway's proposals in as timely a manner as possible. It will then be for the SRA to decide whether it wishes to publish a report.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the meetings held in the last 12 months between Ministers and the promoters of the Central Railway Project. [160817]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no meetings between Ministers of my Department and Central Railway in the past 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has had a number of private meetings with representatives of Central Railway in his capacity as the Member for Sheffield, Central.

  Al2
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions how many(a) injuries and (b) deaths there were in each of the last 12 months for which statistics are available on the A12 between junctions with the M25 and A14; and what the key accident areas were on that stretch of road. [160717]

  Mr. Hill
  The table shows the number of deaths and injuries per month on the Al2 between its junctions with the M25 and the A14 in 1999, the last 12 months for which national statistics are available. It has not been possible categorically to identify key areas of accident clustering.

  Deaths

  Injuries

  January

  0

  28

  February

  0

  11

  March

  3

  38

  April

  1

  21

  May

  0

  36

  June

  0

  27

  July

  0

  24

  August

  1

  28

  September

  0

  36

  October

  1

  35

  November

  1

  33

  December

  1

  36

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of Wandsworth's expenditure was met by(a) Government grant, (b) business rates and (c) council tax in the financial years 1979 to 2001. [160876]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested for Wandsworth is as follows. Information prior to 1993–94 is not currently available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  263W

  Total grant

  Business rates

  Council tax

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  1993–941

  173,675

  75

  55,053

  23.8

  28,282

  12.2

  1994–951

  175,235

  61.5

  52,063

  18.3

  18,290

  6.4

  1995–961

  164,728

  69.2

  55,286

  23.2

  37,084

  15.6

  1996–971

  150,455

  59.4

  62,062

  24.5

  37,098

  14.6

  1997–981

  151,638

  66.6

  57,873

  25.4

  33,989

  14.9

  1998–991

  147,486

  61.5

  60,590

  25.3

  22,238

  9.3

  1999–20001

  153,096

  62.2

  65,496

  26.6

  27,222

  11.1

  2000–012

  151,704

  58.6

  73,719

  28.5

  28,425

  11.0

  2001–022

  164,243

  59.7

  72,732

  26.5

  33,476

  12.2

  1Outturn

  2Budget

  Notes:

  1. Council tax is gross of Council Tax Benefit Grant and Council Tax Transitional Relief Grant.

  2. Percentages do not add up to 100 per cent. due to use of reserves etc.

  3. Comparison between years may be affected by changing responsibilities, in particular creation of GLA in 2000–01.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to allow access to and from motorways for heavy goods vehicles to access local sites. [160814]

  Mr. Hill
  No. In the interests of safety and the free flow of traffic, it is essential to make severe restrictions on the number of motorway accesses. All accesses allowed to motorways must be by strategically located fully designed grade-separated junctions—normally from other trunk roads, major local roads, motorway service areas, or maintenance compounds. Exceptionally, accesses can be provided for other major transport interchanges such as airports.

  Hybrid Fuel-cell Vehicles
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) support and (b) incentives the Government have provided for an early introduction of hybrid fuel-cell vehicles. [160914]

  Mr. Hill
  The £30 million "Powershift" programme, which is sponsored by my Department, is currently supporting several projects to demonstrate hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. The Government have also set up the £9 million new vehicles technology fund to support the introduction of technologies such as fuel-cell and hybrid vehicles offering significant environmental benefits. Additionally, new purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids, since 1 March qualified for lower rates of vehicle excise duty. Owners of electric vehicles—including fuel-cell vehicles—have since 1 April qualified for zero VED.

  The Government plan to publish a consultation document in the summer, on "Powering Future Vehicles", discussing and inviting comment on further steps that Government should take to promote the development and introduction of hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles in this country.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to LPG companies regarding their pricing system with particular reference to the variations in price from area to area.[160908]
  264W
  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at column 307W.

  Ofgen
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to Ofgen about the treatment of CHP in Ofgen's review of the initial impact of NETA. [160798]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Minister for Energy asked Ofgen to undertake a review of the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators based on its first two months of live operation. I have made clear to the chief executive of Ofgen the importance which I attach to an early and successful outcome to the review, so that the concerns which CHP generators are expressing about the impact of NETA are thoroughly addressed. CHP has significant environmental benefits. and we need to ensure that its full potential can still be realised within the context of NETA. As part of the CHP strategy, which we will issue for consultation later this year, we will also examine other ways of ensuring that our target of 10,000MW of installed CHP capacity is met by 2010.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish(a) the pro ections of the cost per tonne of carbon saved and (b) the absolute carbon saving projections for (i) renewable energy, (ii) domestic energy efficiency and (iii) combined heat and power as originally outlined on pages 17 and 46 of the 1998 DETR document, the UK Climate Change Programme: Consultation paper. [160799]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have not updated the general costs per tonne of carbon saved that were included in the 1998 climate change consultation paper. We produced a qualitative assessment of the costs and benefits in the UK's climate change programme that was published in November 2000. The Government will consider whether it is possible to re-assess the costs per tonne of carbon saved from each policy in the future, as part of the formal evaluation of the climate change programme in 2004–05. The results of this evaluation will be published.
  265W
  The climate change programme included estimated carbon savings for all those policies for which savings could be quantified. We estimate that delivery of the Government's target to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable energy, as against around 5 per cent. that might otherwise have teen achieved, could bring savings of 2.5 MtC in 2010. Extensive discussions about the potential costs and benefits of domestic energy efficiency confirmed that a range of simple measures could save up to 2.7–3.8 MtC per year by 2010. The UK's current CHP capacity of around 4,700 MWe is estimated to save around 4 MtC per year. The carbon savings from increased use of CHP are reflected within those for a range of other policies within the programme, particularly the climate change levy, climate change agreements and community heating.

  GM Maize
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU country gave part C consent for GM maize, under European Directive 90/220/EC; on what date the consent was given; and to whom. [160720]

  Mr. Meacher
  European member states have given Part C consent, under European Directive 90/220/EC, to four types of GM maize. One is for importation and processing only. The other three are for importation and cultivation in the European Union (EU).

  The genetically modified (GM) maize in the farm-scale evaluation programme is known as T25 maize (consent reference number—C/F/95/12/07). The French competent authority received the initial application for part C approval of T25 maize in 1995, which was for both commercial cultivation and for importation. Following consideration by other member states the French granted formal approval for T25 maize on 3 August 1998, to AgrEvo France. This company is known as Aventis CropScience UK in the UK.

  Planning
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the House of Lords' judgment in the recent cases involving planning and human rights. [161064]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We welcome this judgment. These cases, involving the ability of the Secretary of State to make decisions on planning schemes, are of great importance to the planning system and have wide implications. The House of Lords today unanimously upheld the Secretary of State's role under the planning Acts and have found no breach of article 6 of the european convention on human rights. They found that there is no incompatibility between the Secretary of State being responsible for formulating planning policy as well as for taking decisions in individual cases. He is democratically accountable to Parliament and, through the process of judicial review, to the courts. They found that article 6 is satisfied. Planning cases in the pipeline will continue to be handled in the normal way.
  266W

  Cleansing Services Group
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive concerning the incident at the Cleansing Services Group Ltd. site at Sandhurst in Gloucestershire on 30 October; and if he will make a statement. [161071]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the progress report the Deputy Prime Minister has received from Sir John Harman, chairman of the Environment Agency, on the incident that occurred on 30 October at the CSG Ltd. facility at Sandhurst. The report has been compiled jointly by the agency and the Health and Safety Executive. It advises that, while no form of contamination has been found off-site that might be hazardous to human health or the environment and there is no risk to the food chain, some local residents have reported symptoms some time after the fire. The report also confirms that the investigation by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive into criminal offences that may have been committed is on-going.

  I understand the concerns of local residents about the incident and their calls for a public inquiry. The Prime Minister made it clear in his response to a question from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 25 April 2001, Official Report, column 296, that we would make a determination as to whether there should be a full public inquiry as soon as we received this report. I am now giving the matter urgent consideration and expect to make an announcement in due course.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Green Ministers have agreed on the details of a target on purchasing electricity from renewable sources. [161074]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce that the Green Ministers Committee has agreed the following target:
  All departments will ensure that, by 31 March 2003, at least 5 per cent. of their electricity comes from renewable sources that are exempt from the climate change levy, or from self generation, provided this does not entail excessive cost. This will rise to at least 10 per cent. supply from such sources by 31 March 2008, but will be reviewed after 31 March 2003, to take account of market conditions following the introduction of the renewables obligation.
  The review of 2003 will include consideration of increasing or bringing forward the target.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  GCSEs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the percentage of pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A⋆ to C for each of the schools in an Excellence in Cities area for (a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [158849]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Every mainstream secondary school in the authorities listed benefits or will benefit from the Excellence in Cities

  267W
  programme. In addition, smaller groups of school—including secondary schools—will benefit from inclusion within the new excellence clusters.

  Schools in the first 25 phase 1 EiC authorities came on stream from September 1999 (academic year 1999–2000), those in the 23 phase 2 authorities from September 2000 (academic year 2000–01), and schools in the 11 phase 3 authorities (including North Sefton) and 11 excellence clusters will begin implementing the programme from September 2001 (academic year 2001–02).

  I refer the hon. Member to the secondary school performance tables published by my Department for information on individual school achievements. Overall, the proportion of pupils in EiC phase 1 partnerships achieving five or more GCSE/GNVQ grades A⋆-C rose by 2.3 percentage points between 1999 and 2000, compared with an average increase of 1.3 percentage points for all other maintained schools in England.

  Local Education Authorities in the Excellence in Cities Programme

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  Bradford

  Brent

  Bristol, City of

  Camden

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Doncaster

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Gateshead

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Hartlepool

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kent

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewisham

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Tyneside

  Nottingham

  268W

  Oldham

  Portsmouth

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Sunderland

  Tameside

  Tower Hamlets

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Source:

  DfEE Register of Educational Establishments

  Child Care Places (Slough)
  Fiona Mactagart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) nursery and (b) after-school child care places were available in Slough in (i) April 1997 and (ii) April 2001. [160787]

  Ms Hodge
  In January 1997, 1,790 early education places for three and four-year-olds were taken up in the Slough local education authority area. By January 2000, this had increased to 2,434. Figures for the numbers of early education places for three and four-year-olds taken up in January 2001 are not yet available.

  From September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place, From autumn 2004, all three-year-olds in England will also be entitled to a free early education place, if their parents want one.

  We are unable to show statistics for out of school child care places prior to January 1999. In January 1999, there were 54 out of school child care places in group-based care in the Slough area. There was a slight decline in the year to January 2000 but we have yet to receive the figure for January 2001. Furthermore, 1,130 out of school places in both group-based care and with child minders are planned to be created between April 2001 and March 2004. Data for January 2001 are not yet available.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of pupils achieved(a) 25 per cent. or less, (b) 26 to 50 per cent., (c) 51 to 75 per cent. and (d) 76 per cent. and above in each of the main key stage 2 tests in each of the last three years. [160685]
  269W
  Jacqui Smith
  Key stage 2 test results are analysed and reported in terms of levels of a pupil 's attainment rather than as marks or percentages. The marks from which the levels are derived are not appropriate for comparisons over time, because of the variations in the tests. National curriculum levels are set in a way that aims to ensure consistency of standards over time and therefore provide a sound basis for such comparisons.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many, and what percentage of children in secondary education were in private schools(a) in each English local education authority and (b)in England as whole in (i) the latest year for which figures are available and (ii) each of the two preceding years. [160618]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The annual schools' census collects information on pupils in independent schools educated in those schools, regardless of where the pupils live. Therefore, information is not available on the area of residence of pupils in independent schools and which local education authority would be responsible for them. Areas have different densities of independent schools which would lead to an over estimate of the proportion of pupils in independent schools in some areas.

  Also, independent schools are not classified as primary or secondary.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total value of the moneys clawed back from further education colleges was in the year 2000–01; how much of this money was re-allocated to further education; and there is a plan to use it to increase the value of the units for 2001–02 by a fixed amount. [160523]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) recovered £145 million from further education colleges where student numbers were not at the expected level in its last financial year 2000–01 and re-allocated £100 million to further education colleges. Where student numbers have gone up, the FEFC's successor, the Learning and Skills Council, will be considering reallocation of further funds in due course. There are no plans to increase the value of units for 2001–02 by a fixed amount.

  Nursery Places (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each nursery school in Shrewsbury and Atcharn(a) the funding received and (b) the number of free nursery places created since 1 May 1997 for (i) three-year-olds and (ii) four-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [160521]
  270W
  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: Data regarding funding and number places for each individual nursery school are not held centrally.

  Since 1997, however, a total of 1,639 new early education places have been created for three and four-year-olds in all settings in the Shropshire local education authority area. Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time early education place.

  In 2001–02, Shropshire LEA has been allocated sufficient funding to create a further 748 new early education places for three-year-olds. By September 2004, all three-year-olds in England will be entitled to a free early education place, if their parents want one.

  The funding available to Shropshire for early years education and child care since 1997 is shown in the following table.

  £

  Year

  Child care funding

  Early Years Funding (SSA and Nursery Education Grant)

  Total

  1997–98

  n/a

  4,336,632

  4,336,632

  1998–99

  70,000

  5,638,935

  5,708,935

  1999–2000

  199,200

  5,863.664

  6,062,864

  2000–01

  296,400

  6,520,177

  6,816,577

  2001–02

  1,168.690

  7,268,624

  8,437,314

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 show the position before boundary changes took effect and include Telford and Wrekin. Figures for later years are for Shropshire only, without Telford and Wrekin.

  2. Figures for 2001–02 are estimates only.

  Education Provision (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much it cost to replace a demountable classroom for the Bayston Hill Music and Arts Centre in Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [160518]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: £71,991 was allocated to this project under the third phase of the New Deal for Schools programme in 1999–2000. This was the total estimated cost of the project. Shropshire local education authority will be able to advise the final cost of the project.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much it cost to provide additional classrooms at(a) Sundorne infants, (b) Greenfields primary and (c) Springfield infants schools in Shrewsbury and if he will make a statement. [160517]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The Government have allocated £80,000 and £88,000 respectively to Greenfields primary and Springfield infants schools, to provide additional accommodation as part of the infant class size initiative. Although capital funding has not been provided for an additional infant classroom at Sundorne infants, I understand that remodelling of existing accommodation has enabled the school to extend its nursery unit. The cost of that work, some £34,000, was supported by the school and the local education authority.
  271W
  The Government pledged to limit infant classes to 30. We have already delivered that pledge early for the vast majority of infants, including those in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. This has been achieved with the help of substantial funding made available under the class size initiative—allocations to Shropshire LEA alone amount to some £3.5 million.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list which schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham will benefit from the special Educational Needs Standards Fund; and if he will make a statement. [160515]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: We have made £82 million of supported expenditure available through the special educational needs standards fund in the current year (2001–02). This compares to £55 million in 2000£01. The allocation for this year for Shropshire LEA is £370,016.

  The fund can be used for a range of activities including training for staff in special educational needs, improvements in speech and language therapy provision for children with communication difficulties, the provision of information and advice to parents, and the greater inclusion of children with special educational needs in the mainstream.

  Information is not collected on how money is distributed by LEAs between schools. It is for individual LEAs to decide how they will use their grant but we expect them to work in partnership with their schools when deciding their special educational needs priorities.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham that have received new computer suites since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [160509]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The Department does not hold information on the number of new computer suites in schools. However, since 1998 the average number of pupils per computer in primary and secondary schools in England has improved from 17.6: 1 to 12.6: 1, and from 8.7: 1 to 7.9: 1, respectively. Shropshire LEA estimates that £663,770 of national grid for learning funding has been allocated to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham through the standards fund since 1997.

  Class Sizes (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school classes of five to seven-year-olds with over 30 pupils there were in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [160508]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The available information is shown in the following table. Information on class sizes by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to 1997.
  272W

  Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency

  Number of:

  Year

  Key stage 1 classes with 31 or more pupils

  Pupils in key stage classes of 31 or more

  1997

  20

  648

  1998

  18

  577

  1999

  9

  285

  2000

  4

  125

  20011

  0

  0

  1Provisional

  Note:

  Classes taught by one teacher

  The Government pledged to limit infant classes to 30. We have already delivered that pledge early for the vast majority of infants, including in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. This has been achieved with the help of substantial funding made available under the class size initiative—allocations to Shropshire LEA alone amount to some £3.5 million.

  Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the capital projects and their Value at Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [160506]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The college has had two capital projects: the refurbishment of a building to provide a new performing arts centre by relocating the catering outlet at a cost of £468,000; and various accessibility works including a kitchen and toilet suitable for people who have disabilities, a new entrance and access ramps at a total cost of £64,999.

  The Government have made available capital funding of £140 million in this financial year for the further education sector and a further £164 million and £256 million for the sector over the next two financial years respectively.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures have been introduced to promote individual learning accounts in the workplace. [160305]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Everyone aged 19 or over is entitled to open an individual learning account (ILA), including those in the workplace, provided their choice of learning is not graduate or post-graduate level and is not sports or leisure related.

  Our approach has been to work with and through influential employer bodies such as the TUC, Small Business Service (SBS), the national training organisation (NTO) network and Campaign for Learning in promoting ILAs to employees.

  A number of innovative approaches have been developed. These include the small firm learning account (SFLA), a pilot scheme offering additional funding to employees in small businesses. There are also more than 40 union learning fund (ULF) projects run by trade unions, which involve the promotion of ILAs, and their use, as tools for engaging people in the workplace.
  273W

  Reconditioned Computers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people on low incomes have(a) bought and (b) leased a reconditioned computer under the scheme announced in March 2000. [160216]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: No new schemes were specifically announced in March 2000, but the Department is running a number f relevant schemes, such as computers within reach, wi red-up communities and other small-scale pilots. So far, 6,000 computers have been made available in the pilot areas in which the schemes are taking place. Contractors currently have lists totalling 19,000 clients, who have already been assessed for their eligibility for the schemes and who will receive their computers over the next few months.

  There are also plans to allocate further PCs in addition to the number indicated above and we are currently reviewing the approach to distributing recycled computers in the light of experience so far of these schemes.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which London headquarters premises owned or leased by his Department use(a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other relevant energy needs. [160019]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Chlorofluorocarbons are no longer used by the Department; and

  (b) Some hydrochlorofluorocarbons are still in use for refrigeration and air conditioning at both of the Department's London buildings.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other relevant energy needs of buildings and premises owned and leased by his Department; and if he will make a statement.[160017]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: It is the Department's policy to use environmentally preferable refrigerants wherever practicable, and to continue to explore other environmentally benign alternatives.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent his Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of

  LEA

  FTE of pupils in all maintained schools

  DfEE grant (£000)

  LEA matched funding (£000)

  Programme total(£000)

  Programme total

  Amount per FTE pupil(£000)

  867 Bracknell Forest

  15,081

  111.8

  25.0

  136.8

  136,760

  9.07

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  18,631

  178.0

  0.0

  178.0

  178,000

  9.55

  869 Newbury (West Berkshire)

  23,736

  201.1

  6.1

  207.1

  207,100

  8.73

  870 Reading

  16,854

  81.0

  0.0

  81.0

  81,000

  4.81

  871 Slough

  18,546.5

  129.0

  92.0

  221.0

  221,000

  11.92

  872 Wokingham

  23,526

  190.0

  0.0

  190.0

  190,000

  8.08

  England

  7,558,954.5

  59,379

  —

  —

  59,379,397

  7.86

  274W
  hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [160011]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: My Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons in (a) kitchen and tea point refrigerators and (b) air conditioning or air cooling systems at three buildings. Information on the amounts of hydrofluorocarbons purchased since 1995 is not collected in the form requested. It is the Department's policy to avoid the purchase and use of hydrofluorocarbons in favour of environmentally preferable substitutes wherever possible.

  Music Standards Fund
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the average amount of money allocated to each pupil from the music standards fund is in the current year; [159189]

  (2) how much money per pupil was allocated to each unitary authority in Berkshire from the music standards fund in 2001–02; [159190]

  (3) what formula was used to determine the allocation to local education authorities from the music standards fund for 2001–02; [159188]

  Jacqui Smith
  Until last year, the music standards fund was based on a system that allowed LEAs to bid for funding. From this year, LEAs will be allocated funding on a formula based on a free school meals deprivation factor. We expect £10 million of the Government's contribution to be matched equally by LEAs. The matched funding was frozen at 2000–01 levels so that no LEA should pay more in matched funding, and no LEA would receive less grant for music than in 2000–01.

  The Government's grant of £50 million is broken down in two ways; £25 million was allocated based on the number of schools (primary, secondary, special and PRU) in each LEA, ie the £25 million was divided by the total number of schools in all the LEAs and distributed to each LEA pro rata. The remaining £25 million was allocated according to the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of pupils in those schools multiplied by the mean free school meals FSM percentage for each LEA.

  Based on this formula, if the allocation to an LEA is lower than previously, we would protect the allocation based on last year's figures. In the case of Berkshire, all the unitary authorities received protected funding, as their allocations calculated by need would have been lower than their previous bids.

  The overall amount per full-time equivalent (FTE) pupil in England is £7.86. The table sets out the music standards fund allocations and the amount per FTE for the Berkshire unitary authorities:
  275W

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158560]

  Mr. Wills
  Between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 one of my departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity on one occasion.

  All overseas visits comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Employment (Disabled People)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people are seeking work. [158103]

  Ms Hodge
  Figures on jobseeking activity are currently available only for adults of working age. The latest labour force statistics indicate that 345,000 people who are disabled are actively seeking work. Figures from the Labour Force Survey also indicate that around 400,000 people on incapacity benefits would like to work, and could work, given the right level of support.

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on levels of teacher recruitment and retention in Devon. [153175]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Teacher recruitment and wastage are as follows:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–19991

  Recruits

  860 (10.0%)

  1,000 (11.6%)

  1,040 (11.7%)

  Wastage

  800 (9.2%)

  790 (9.1%)

  700 (8.0%)

  1Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Figures in brackets are estimated rates.

  2. Some part-time teachers may be omitted from the numbers above if they were not members of the Teachers Pension Scheme.

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2001 was 410,300, the highest since 1984 and 12,600 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train as teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

TREASURY

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the delivery of funds to EU Objective I regions. [159879]
  276W
  Mr. Timms
  The Single Programme Document process at the start of the Objective 1 period is one of a number of measures to ensure efficient and effective delivery. I am pleased that there is good progress in Cornwall, where, after just a few months in a seven-year programme, £39 million of grant has been approved—13 per cent. of the total.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Leigh
  TO ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total level of expenditure incurred to date by Government bodies in connection with the national changeover plan. [159884]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of expenditure on national changeover planning were included in the Fourth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 6 November 2000. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  The Government will provide an updated breakdown of public sector spending in the next progress report, which will be published later this year.

  Fuel Smuggling (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was obtained by seizures of smuggled road fuel in Northern Ireland during the financial year 2000–01; and what the total estimated loss in revenue from cross-border fuel smuggling in Northern Ireland was during this period. [159894]

  Mr. Timms
  The amount of fuel seized in 2000–01 was more than doable the previous year, safeguarding revenue of over £850,000. Customs does not have an estimate for revenue lost specifically from cross-border fuel smuggling for this period, but the number of vehicles seized was tripled last year through the enhanced enforcement action and the number of laundering plants hit rose more than fivefold.

  NHS (Investment)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Government's plans to invest additional resources in the NHS this year.[159895]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Before the 2001 Budget the Chancellor received many representations from professional organi sations, trade bodies, members of the public and Members of Parliament on a wide range of issues, including the NHS. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced additional resources for the NHS in England of £300 million, £295 million and £240 million in the period 2001–02 to 2003–04 over and above the significant increases already announced in the 2000 Spending Review. These in vestment plans have been widely welcomed as the basis for the strategy of investment and reform set out in the NHS Plan and the Department of Health's public service agreement targets.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for spending on the health service in each of the next three years. [159898]
  277W
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for investment in the national health service over the next four years. [159906]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Total net NHS expenditure in the UK is planned to reach £69.5 million by 2003–04, representing an annual average increase of 5.7 per cent. in real terms over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04. Plans for future years will be set in the next spending review. In England these plans support the strategy of investment and reform set out in the NHS Plan and the Department of Health public service agreement targets. Key priorities include cutting waiting times, tackling health inequalities and investing in world-class hospitals and equipment.

  Saving Incentives
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage low-income households to save. [159896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 26 April, budding on the success of the ISA in encouraging a wider group of people to save more, the Government announced a consultation on two new proposals to encourage saving and the build-up of assets, the Saving Gateway and the Child Trust Fund. The Saving Gateway would encourage lower-income earners to save by offering to match savings with contributions from the Government. The Child Trust Fund would offer all families an account in which to save for their children, with every child from birth receiving an endowment from the Government to start the build-up of assets.

  Eurozone
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the abilities of eurozone countries to withstand a downturn in the US economy and the consequent impact on jobs in the United Kingdom. [159897]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government continue to monitor the downside risks facing the global economy closely. With low, stable inflation and sound public finances, the British economy is now much better placed to face global risks than before, and to continue to deliver sustained growth.

  Business Environment
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact of his policies on the business environment; and if he will make a statement. [159899]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's central economic objective is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. Over the past four years the Government have been determined that we will not return to the damaging cycle of boom and bust, which in the late 1980s and early 1990s saw interest rates rise to 15 per cent. for a whole year; and because of the choices we have made we now have the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, and the lowest unemployment since 1975.

  We will not take this hard-won stability for granted. Budget 2001 locked in economic stability for the future, with the fiscal stance at least as tight as set out in Budget 2000 and the pre-Budget report.
  278W
  The Government welcome representations made by the business community. This on-going and productive dialogue is essential to allow the Government to maintain their record of improvement of the business environment.

  Following the Budget, the Government have received many representations that express continuing support for the Government's prudent approach to fiscal policy.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit; and how many families were in receipt of family credit in May 1997. [159900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At November 2000, 1,168,000 families were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit. At May 1997, 775,000 families were in receipt of Family Credit.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the tax paid by pensioners. [159902]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of the Government's policies on tax, seven out of 10 pensioners pay either no tax, or pay tax only at the 10p rate. Following our personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average compared to 1997.

  European Monetary Union
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he will take of public opinion in making a recommendation to replace the pound with the European single currency. [159903]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The Government believe that, if a decision to recommend joining is taken by the Government, it should be put to a vote in Parliament, and then to a referendum of the British people.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent change there has been to his policy on British participation in the European single currency. [159905]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from farming organisations about the appropriate exchange rate for joining the single European currency. [159891]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor meets representatives from the farming industry to discuss a wide range of issues.
  279W

  Public Service Agreements
  27. Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of public service agreements. [159907]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public service agreements detail the Government's commitments for the next three years, in return for the resources put in. Performance against these targets has been set out in the recently published annual departmental reports.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's policies on child poverty. [159908]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax and benefit reforms announced in this Parliament will lift over 1.2 million children out of relative poverty.

  As a result of the measures, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will on average be £1,700 a year better off, a real increase of around 15 per cent. in their incomes.

  Public Investment
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's approach to investment in public services. [159909]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  When this Government came to power, public sector net investment was equal to 0.5 per cent. of national income. The plans set out in the 2000 Spending Review will increase net investment to 1.7 per cent. of GDP by 2003–04. This Government are turning around 20 years of under-investment to modernise our public services.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the amount of tax paid by the telecommunications industry and the mobile phone manufacturers in each of the last three years. [159910]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK corporation tax liability of companies in the telecommunications industry and among mobile phone manufacturers, taken together, is as follows in respect of the latest three financial years for which estimates are available:

  £billion

  1996–97

  1.2

  1997–98

  1.0

  1998–99

  1.3

  Annuities
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from interested organisations on annuities. [159911]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his policy on annuities. [159893]
  280W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is set out in Section 5.67 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on Budget Day, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 236W, regarding annuity reform, what his estimate is of the costs to the Exchequer involved in introducing the recommendations of the McDonald report, with particular reference to the (a) minimum income requirement and (b) continued investment and management of the remaining pension funds available. [155963]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: The information requested is set out in Section 5.67 of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report" published on Budget Day, copies of which are in the Library.

  New Build and Renovation
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on VAT on new build and renovation. [159912]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor's Budget announcement included a cut to 5 per cent. in the rate of VAT on the cost of converting residential properties into a different number of dwellings and on the renovation of homes that have been empty for three years or more. The zero rate of VAT it. also to be adjusted to provide relief for the sale of renovated houses which have been empty for 10 years or more.

  Minimum Wage (Glasgow)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he w ill publish estimates of the number of jobs paid at s less then the national minimum wage rate for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 2000, for (i) Glasgow, Pollok constituency and (ii) the City of Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [160827]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 10 May 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of jobs paid at less than national minimum wage (NMW) rates in Glasgow, Pollok constituency and City of Glasgow for 1998–99 and 2000. (160827)The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid as less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/nbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies and Unitary Authorities of number of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.281W

  Suicide (Aspirin and Paracetamol)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) committed suicide and (b) attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose of (i) aspirin and (ii) paracetamol in each year since 1995. [161000]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Fiona Mactaggart, dated 10 May 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about how many people (a) committed suicide and (b) attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose of (i) aspirin and (ii) paracetamol in each year since 1995. I am replying in his absence. (161000)Figures for the number of suicides from aspirin and paracetamol since 1995 are presented in the attached table.Figures are not available for attempted suicides by taking an overdose of aspirin or paracetamol.

  Number of suicide1 deaths from paracetamol and aspirin, England and Wales, 1995 to 1999

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (i) Aspirin

  Without mention of other drugs

  28

  24

  32

  24

  13

  With mention of other drugs2

  19

  19

  13

  11

  8

  (ii) Paracetamol

  Without mention of other drugs

  155

  125

  162

  141

  104

  With mention of other drugs3

  98

  86

  97

  101

  110

  1Includes suicide and poisoning of undetermined intent classified according to the International Classification of Disease, ninth edition, and are selected using ICD cocks E950.0-E950.5 and E980.0-E980.5.

  2 Includes compounds containing aspirin

  3 Includes compounds containing paracetamol

  Children's Grants
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he expects to benefit from the new children's bond in the first year of its introduction. [159877]

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the proposed grant to children at birth. [159882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In late April the Government announced a consultation on two new proposals to encourage saving and the build up of assets, the Saving Gateway and the Child Trust Fund. The Child Trust Fund would benefit each of the 700.000 or more children born every year. The scheme would allow parents, grandparents, friends and children themselves to make additional contributions, so providing families with a safe and secure account to save towards their children's future. The Child Trust Fund would provide all young people beginning their adult life with the advantage that owning financial assets brings.

  The cost of the scheme would depend on the level of the endowment and other aspects of its design, details on which the Government are consulting. But cost-effectiveness will be a key consideration as the Government develop this proposal in the light of consultation.
  282W

  Community Sports Clubs
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce VAT relief for community sports clubs. [159887]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Brian White) at column 257.

  Illegally Imported Meat
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tonnage of illegally-imported meat was intercepted by HM Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available.[160905]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, Customs seized 2.655 metric tonnes of meat. This figure does not include meat detected when Customs are working with the lead enforcement authorities for meat imports, MAFF or local authority officials, where the meat is seized by the lead authorities. Customs have no central record of those seizures.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 190W, on the legal status of the euro after 1 January 2002, if the euro will have the same legal status in the United Kingdom as other foreign currencies that it will replace. [160846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Yes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the changeover cost for(a) business and (b) the civil service, if the United Kingdom accedes to the euro. [160902]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have not made any estimate of the cost of a changeover either to business or the public sector.

  The cost of a changeover would depend on the overall approach taken and individual management decisions.

  Child Tax Credit (Glasgow)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) the UK, (b) Scotland, (c) Glasgow and (d) Glasgow, Pollok have claimed child tax credit up to the latest date for which figures are available. [160824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have invited PAYE taxpayers to claim the Children's Tax Credit (CTC). To date they have received over 3.5 million claim forms, which represents more than 85 per cent. of the potential 4 million families who are eligible for CTC and pay tax under PAYE in the UK. Self employed taxpayers will claim when they submit their 2001–02 tax returns. I regret that the other information that my hon. Friend has asked for is not available.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated average life expectancy is of(a) men

  283W
  and (b) women, in (i) Glasgow, Pollok, (ii) the City of Glasgow, (iii) Scotland and (iv) the UK on (1) 1 May and (2) 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [160828]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimates of life expectancy are not available for specific days. The table gives life expectancy at birth for the period 1995–97 and for the calendar year 1997 and the calendar year 1999, the latest year for which the data required to calculate a life table are available. Sub-national life expectancy is not calculated at the level of parliamentary constituencies.

  Expectation of life at birth in year shown

  Area

  Based on data in year(s)

  Males

  Females

  (i)

  Glasgow, Pollok

  —

  1—

  1—

  (ii)

  City of Glasgow

  21995–97

  68.4

  75.4

  (iii)

  Scotland

  21995–97

  72.3

  77.8

  Scotland

  31997

  72.6

  78.0

  Scotland

  31999

  72.7

  78.4

  (iv)

  United Kingdom

  21995–97

  74.4

  79.6

  United Kingdom

  31997

  74.7

  79.7

  United Kingdom

  31999

  75.0

  79.9

  1Not available

  2 Source: Griffiths C. and Fitzpatrick J. Geographic inequalities in Life Expectancy in the United Kingdom. 'Health Statistics Quarterly' no. 9. The Stationery Office 2001.

  3Source: The Government Actuary's Department

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 7 May; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [160972]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers with the Paymaster General.

  The Commission presented its recommendation for the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) for 2001. This consists of a section of guidelines addressed to the Community as a whole, and a series of guidelines addressed to individual member states. I made it clear that the Commission had exceeded its remit in proposing a UK-specific guideline that the expected ratio of UK public sector current expenditure to GDP should not exceed 37.3 per cent. Decisions on the level of public spending are for member states, and the Government's fiscal rules ensure sound and sustainable public finances while enabling increased investment in priority public services. The guidelines will now be discussed by officials from the member states and the Commission before ECOFIN presents them to the European Council in Gothenburg and their final adoption by ECOFIN.

  A joint Council-Commission delegation will travel to Russia next week to discuss economic co-operation. The presidency reported on its plans to discuss how the EU could best contribute to improving the financial and
  284W
  investment climate in Russia. No decisions would be taken, and the presidency will report back to ECOFIN on the dialogue.

  The presidency gave an update on the exchanges of correspondence between the Commission and the European Parliament on the modalities of the Lamfalussy proposals for improving the regulation of the securities market.

  The Economic Policy Committee chairman set out the committee's work programme for the coming year. This includes UK-inspired work on how economic incentives contribute to promoting R&D. The Committee will report back on this to ECOFIN in the autumn.

  Ministers agreed that further work was required on prudential regulation of supplementary pensions. Conclusions were also adopted on e-commerce and financial services.

  The Commission gave advance notice of the preliminary draft Community budget for 2002, which was subsequently adopted by the Commission on 8 May.

  The Commission presented its communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions, which advocates exchange of information and Sharing best practice as solutions to double or non-taxation of cross-border pensions. Ministers agreed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the member states and a technical working group should undertake a more detailed study of the communication.

  No votes were taken during the course of the meeting.

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on compensation for asbestosis sufferers and their families following the insolvency of the insurance company Chester Street. [161061]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following the insolvency of Chester Street on 9 January this year, concerns were raised over the position of employees whose private sector employer insured with Chester Street and no longer exists or is insolvent, and whose injury was sustained during employment in the private sector before 1972 (1975 in Northern Ireland). There were fears that these individuals would not receive the compensation for which their employers would have been liable.

  However, the insurance industry will fund compensation to those individuals in the following circumstances.
  The Policyholder's Protection Board (PPB) will make payment in accordance with their statutory powers (90 per cent. of awards in respect of pre-1972 (1975 in NI) liabilities) if the compensation award was settled prior to Chester Street's insolvency on 9 January 2001.If the award was settled on or after 9 January, the insurance industry will fund equivalent payments pending the implementation of the new industry funded Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), planned to come into effect no later than November this year. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) have been asked to explore rules to cover employee third party rights in employer liability cases to ensure that in cases where both the employer and the insurer are insolvent, victims receive compensation.285W
  The Government will themselves fund the compensation owed to former employees of public sector companies for whom they are liable.

  These arrangements apply only when the employer no longer exists or is insolvent. Where the employer still exists, or its liabilities have been carried forward to another company, that company or firm are liable to pay the compensation award.

  The PPB will ensure that claims are topped up to 100 per cent. so far as they relate to compulsory insurance policies (i.e. relate to the period from 1972 (1975 in Northern Ireland)). Both private sector employers and, where that employer no longer exists, the employees, are eligible for that payment.

  Waste Management
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to set the waste industry targets to allocate a greater proportion of tax credits under the landfill tax credit scheme towards sustainable waste management projects, particularly those which promote recycling. [161062]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set an indicative target of 65 per cent. of landfill tax credits to be allocated to sustainable waste management projects (category C-CC). The Government also propose that the industry works towards at least maintaining the current proportion of a third of tax credits within this category allocated specifically to recycling projects.

  The Government will review progress towards these targets in future Budget reports.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his measures to tackle long-term unemployment. [159880]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations are in place concerning the import of(a) meat and (b) livestock from countries where foot and mouth disease is prevalent. [156369]

  Ms Quin
  EU rules permit the importation of meat from a limited number of third countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specified regions. The meat must come from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose foot and mouth disease risk, may be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. GB domestic 286W
  rules currently prohibit the import of meat from Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa and Swaziland where foot and mouth disease outbreaks have been recently confirmed. The GB Regulations governing the imports of these products are the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 (as amended) and the Fresh Meat (Import Conditions) Regulations 1996.

  GB imports livestock under EU or national rules only from countries or areas officially recognised as being free from foot and mouth disease. GB imports of livestock are regulated by the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (as amended) and the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended).

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries in which foot and mouth disease is considered to be endemic, indicating in each case if importation of their meat into the United Kingdom is prohibited. [154429]

  Ms Quin
  The importation of meat is permitted from a limited number of third countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specified regions. EC rules permit imports from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose any foot and mouth disease risk, may be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. UK domestic rules currently prohibit the import of meat from Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa and Swaziland where foot and mouth disease outbreaks have been recently confirmed. The UK Regulations governing the imports of these products are the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 (as amended) and the Fresh Meat (Import Conditions) Regulations 1996.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when restrictions on imported beef from(a) Argentina and (b) other countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic were first imposed. [155232]

  Ms Quin
  EC rules permit the importation of meat from a limited number of third countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specified regions. The meat must come from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose a foot and mouth disease risk may be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia and Uruguay. Domestic legislation in England and Wales currently prohibits the import of meat from South Africa and Swaziland (since 5 January 2001), Argentina (since 14 March) and Uruguay (since 26 April). Scotland and Northern Ireland took similar action for each of these countries shortly after each of the dates specified.
  287W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his main policy decisions in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, indicating in each case whether he had to seek EU approval. [157266]

  Ms Quin
  The following table lists the key policy decisions, showing where EU approval had to be sought. Where it was not necessary to obtain EU approval, we have kept the Commission and other member states informed.

  Decision

  EU approval required

  Suspension of issue of export certificates

  1No

  Immediate standstill on all FMD susceptible animal movements throughout GB

  No

  Prompt slaughtering of all infected premises and dangerous contacts

  No

  Sheep and pigs 3 km cull in Cumbria

  No

  Army deployed

  No

  Contiguous premises to be treated as dangerous contacts

  No

  24/48 hour targets set

  No

  Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme launched

  2Yes

  Contingency plan for emergency vaccination in Cumbria and Devon drawn up

  Yes

  Lifting of restrictions in some areas

  No

  Animals in surveillance zones sent for slaughter for food chain, at approved abattoirs in same zone

  No

  Refinement of contiguous cull policy

  No

  1But resumption of exports will require EU approval

  2For State Aid purposes

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when movement restrictions imposed on the area surrounding Stiles abattoir in Bromham will be lifted. [156902]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The Declaratory Order relating to the infected area which includes Bromham was revoked on 22 April 2001.

  The Stiles abattoir in Bromham is able to take animals for slaughter. From 23 April, animals inside an infected area but not within 3 km of an infected premises have been allowed to move for slaughter to an abattoir within the same infected area. This movement is subject to veterinary inspection for clinical signs of disease. The Minister announced on 3 May that healthy animals within the 3 km protection zone could also be licensed for slaughter within the infected area, subject to an examination for clinical signs of foot and mouth disease by a MAFF local veterinary inspector.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what warnings were given to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department of the risk of spreading foot and mouth prior to the present outbreak through out-of-ring sales at markets. [156882]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: We are not aware of any warnings which highlighted the risk of spread of foot and mouth disease from out-of-ring sales. Since such sales are not recorded on the market records there will inevitably be delays and difficulties in tracing movements of these sheep from a market. Any delay in tracing livestock that may have been exposed to infection may increase the risk of disease spread.
  288W
  The Government are now consulting on proposals to introduce a requirement limiting movements of sheep, goats and cattle by restricting their movement off an agricultural holding within a period of 20 days following the movement of animals onto the holding. For sheep and goats it is also proposed to introduce a requirement for notification of movements. There is already a system of notifying cattle movements.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what warnings were given to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department of the risk of spreading foot and mouth prior to the present outbreak on account of the absence of a standstill period after movement for sheep, goats and cattle. [156880]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: Ministers and officials are not aware of any warnings about the risk of spreading foot and mouth specifically as a result of the absence of a standstill period.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish daily statistics showing the number of animals awaiting slaughter, broken down to show the number of(a) healthy animals, (b) animals suffering from foot and mouth disease and (c) he carcases awaiting disposal. [156835]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: Daily statistics are published on MAFF's internet site www.maff.gov.uk showing the number of animals awaiting slaughter, number of animals slaughtered and the number of carcases that are awaiting disposal. We also publish daily average slaughter and disposal figures.

  It is not possible to break down the number of slaughtered animals into those that are healthy, and those that were diagnosed as infected with foot and mouth disease. This is due to the automatic cull of all animals on infected premises and those animals considered at risk as dangerous contacts. Not all animals which are slaughtered are tested for foot and mouth disease.

  MAFF also publishes daily statistics showing the number of healthy animals slaughtered under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it was decided to make a landfill site at Fosterville, Newton Abbot, available for the burial of carcases of animals slaughtered in connection with the control of foot and mouth disease; what category of carcases(a) have been buried at the site to date and (b) may be buried there in the future; how many carcases and what species of animal can be buried at Fosterville; how many carcases are to be buried at the site; if it is his policy to allow carcases from infected areas to be buried in uninfected areas; if he will list the burial sites that have been approved where carcases from infected areas are buried in uninfected areas; what (i) advice and (ii) representations he has received about the burial of carcases from infected areas in uninfected areas; and if he will make a statement. [157320]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The landfill site at Fosterville, Newton Abbot was made available from 30 March 2001 to accept uninfected carcases from the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Carcases from animals taken for disease control purposes rather than under the welfare scheme are not being sent to Fosterville.
  289W
  As of 23 April 2001 the site had accepted 34,540 carcases from the scheme. The site can accept approximately 200 tonnes of carcases per day. It is anticipated that use of Fosterville is likely to continue until the scheme is no longer necessary.

  MAFF does not approve individual movements of livestock carcases under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. The Intervention Board is responsible for administering this scheme and directs carcases to disposal sites in order to maximise the use of available resources such as abattoirs and disposal sites at any one time, taking account of policy guidelines.

  As far as possible, the objective of the authorities responsible for the disposal arrangements is to ensure that carcases are not transported from a higher risk area to a lower risk area. However factors such as the location of abattoirs and landfill sites mean this is not possible in all circumstances. We recognise that this is a matter of general concern, and has been raised a number of times. Veterinary advice is that the risk of spreading the disease through transporting welfare carcases from infected areas to non-infected areas is low when proper protocols are followed on veterinary inspection before slaughter, transportation and disposal.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average amount paid to date to farms in compensation for the culling of animals in the foot and mouth outbreak; and what estimate he has made of the final average payment. [157787]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Approximately £101 million has been paid so far (as of 3 May) to farmers in compensation for the animals slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. The average payments for each species (as of 26 April) are as follows:

  £

  Cattle

  900.20

  Sheep

  108.21

  Pigs

  88.35

  As of 5 May the estimated approximate total to be paid as compensation is £629 million.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 78W, for what reason motor vehicles arriving from France are not subject to the same disinfectant procedure as motor vehicles leaving Britain. [157085]

  Ms Quin
  The EU Standing Veterinary Committee considered that the risk of disease spread being transmitted by motor vehicles departing the UK for France, as compared to the risk posed by those departing France for the UK, was considered significantly greater because of the large number of outbreaks of foot and mouth in the UK compared with France. Foot and mouth disease related restrictions in France have now been lifted.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the disposal of carcases at Throckmorton airfield will affect the status of the surrounding area for foot and mouth control purposes; and if he will make a statement. [157867]
  290W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The disposal of slaughtered carcases at Throckmorton airfield does not affect the surrounding area for foot and mouth disease control purposes. Part of the site is located within the protection zone of the infected premises at Bishampton and the whole site is included within the infected area.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of the airborne spread of foot and mouth disease. [158450]

  Ms Quin
  Airborne spread of the virus can take place, especially from pigs, but the evidence so far suggests that this has not been a major factor in the spread of the current outbreak.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average cost per head is of (1) on-farm cremation of livestock; [158205]

  (2) on-farm burial of livestock. [158206]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: This information is currently not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his assessment is of the reasons for which the confirmed cases of foot and mouth are disproportionately concentrated in Dumfries and Galloway, Cumbria and Devon; and if he will make a statement. [158253]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The high concentration of cases in these areas is almost certainly attributable to the movements of sheep in the period before the infection at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall was confirmed on 23 February and livestock movements in Great Britain were banned on the same day. These areas are among the most highly stocked in the country and all received sheep from Longtown market during that period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the pig swill used at Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall, was treated and used by a neighbouring farmer; [158244]

  (2) what the basis was of his Department's statement that two named dealers were the main source of spread of foot and mouth disease; [158251]

  (3) on what dates visits were made by MAFF officials to Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the Wall; for what reason such visits took place; on what date officials first formed suspicions about the possible presence of foot and mouth disease in pigs at Burnside Farm; how much time elapsed between the suspicion of disease and its confirmation by test; and if he will make a statement. [158245]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 23 April 2001]: These matters are under inquiry. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his assessment is of the impact on the spread of foot and mouth of the time which passed between the implementation of the export ban and the UK movement ban. [158250]
  291W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The export ban was introduced on 21 February. Before that, movement restrictions had been placed around all of the known cases of the disease, starting with the first suspected case in an Essex abattoir on 19 February.

  The tracing of farms supplying the Essex abattoir began immediately the case was notified. Once the infection at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall had been confirmed on 23 February, the nationwide standstill on livestock movements was introduced the same day.

  It is now known that the disease spread mainly through the movement of sheep and subsequent mixing of animals, and that the vast majority of the spread of disease around the country had already taken place before the first outbreak was discovered in Essex.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to establish the role of personal contact between farmers and (i) other farmers, (ii) veterinary staff and (iii) personnel involved in slaughter in the spread of foot and mouth disease. [158565]

  Ms Quin
  Epidemiological investigations into the outbreak are considering all possible routes of spread. Farmers have been issued with a wide range of advice and guidance on managing contacts with other people. With regard to (i) farmers should limit contact with other keepers of livestock. However, if there is contact then they are advised to disinfect footwear, change clothes and wash with hot water and soap, including hair, before going near their own animals. Any item or object that may have had contact with disease should also be disinfected. On (ii) and (iii) veterinary staff and slaughtermen operate under strict instructions to ensure that all appropriate cleansing and disinfection procedures are followed before and after attending a farm.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cost to benefit analysis he has conducted of the implications of(a) a regime of regular inspections and testing and (b) immediate culling of dairy herds of farms contiguous to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [158507]

  Ms Quin
  The scientific and veterinary advice we received was that the prompt culling of all potentially infected animals—including those on contiguous farms—was essential to the overall success of our disease control policy.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will halt the slaughter of healthy organic stock and rare breeds which are outside the three-mile zone of an area identified with foot and mouth; and if he will make a statement. [158283]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The only animals more than 3 km from infected premises which are being slaughtered under current foot and mouth disease control measures are animals which are dangerous contacts—that is, susceptible animals known to have been in contact with animals that have had the disease, or with personnel, vehicles and equipment which has been in contact with such animals. Exempting such dangerous contacts because they are organic stock or are from rare breeds would involve an unacceptable risk of disease transmission.
  292W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy only to proceed with the cull of dairy cattle at Old House Farm and Eatons Farm, Tibberton, Worcestershire, after the case for such a cull has been reviewed by a Minister; and if he will make a statement. [158989]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: We currently have no plans to cull dairy cattle at either of these premises.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent advice he has received on the properties of napalm relating to(a) vaporising and (b) producing fumes and by-products. [158869]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The Ministry has received advice from the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA) concerning the use of napalm. There are two forms of napalm available, which both produce very toxic compounds when they burn. We therefore have not used napalm because of the public and environmental health risks.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what epidemiological studies he has conducted in(a) Cumbria and (b) elsewhere which study the location of animal cremation pyres, wind direction and later outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [159455]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright has recently produced a report, in collaboration with MAFF and the Meteorological Office, on the spread of the foot and mouth disease virus from the burning of animal carcases on open pyres. This reports is to be published in the "Veterinary Record" shortly.

  Six pyres, located in Devon, Exeter and Worcestershire, were monitored. Additional pyres are currently being investigated in Cumbria and Devon. The report concludes that early results indicate that breakdowns due to virus dispersion from pyres are unlikely to occur in general and the pyres analysed to date have shown no evidence that breakdowns due to this cause have occurred.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average valuation per cow has been for dairy Holstein cattle in each week of the foot and mouth epidemic. [159462]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The precise information requested is not readily available. The weekly average of cattle valuations received is as follows:

  Week ended

  £

  11 March

  712

  18 March

  662

  25 March

  864

  1 April

  810

  8 April

  1,007

  15 April

  1,006

  22 April

  878

  29 April

  1,229

  293W
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of animals from farms caught in the 3 km voluntary cull have tested positive for foot and mouth at Great Orton. [159458]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information requested is not currently held on a computerised system and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughtered on suspicion cases there have been; and how many of these were included in the totals of infected premises. [159459]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: As of 2 May there have been a total of 210 slaughtered on suspicion cases. Of these, 50 have been reclassified as infected premises, following clinical examination or testing, and included in the total of infected premises.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each week of the foot and mouth epidemic the number of suspect cases reported to his Department by farmers and the numbers of those which had swabs sent to Pirbright before foot and mouth disease was confirmed. [159450]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Week commencing

  Number of suspect cases reported 1

  Number of samples taken from suspect cases

  19 February 2001

  36

  18

  26 February 2001

  365

  124

  5 March 2001

  426

  167

  12 March 2001

  581

  219

  19 March 2001

  674

  290

  26 March 2001

  722

  259

  2 April 2001

  596

  223

  9 April 2001

  537

  199

  16 April 2001

  446

  138

  23 April 2001

  340

  77

  30 April 2001

  151

  35

  1The figures include all suspect cases reported, not just those reported by farmers.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the ranks and job titles of the officials in Page street from whom temporary veterinary inspectors had to obtain authorisation that their diagnosis of foot and mouth was a confirmed case. [159451]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: On investigation for foot and mouth disease, a veterinary inspector in the field contacts a Veterinary Adviser at the Emergency Control Centre in Page street, London to discuss the individual case. The Veterinary Adviser will discuss the case with the Veterinary Manager of the Centre or a VA supervisor appointed by him. Centre managers are veterinary members of the senior civil service or unified grade 6. Veterinary Supervisors appointed by them are at veterinary grade 7 or equivalent. All these grades are staffed by experienced and qualified veterinary surgeons. The case is then either confirmed or negated on clinical grounds or the option of "slaughter on suspicion of disease" is followed.
  294W
  At the peak of the outbreak in late March/early April, in order to reduce delays in confirmation, those veterinary advisers who were experienced were given the authority to confirm or negate cases if need be without referral to the manager, though working under supervision. In practice about two thirds of the cases were still discussed before a decision was taken. As soon as the situation eased somewhat centre managers reverted to the standard process of confirmation of cases after discussion with a veterinary manager.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in(a) England, (b) Cumbria and (c) Devon that were originally designated as contiguous were not slaughtered out because of appeals or interventions by (i) the farmers concerned and (ii) third parties. [159461]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: This information is not available in the format requested and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. However, in Cumbria currently there are 14 and in Devon 21 appeals outstanding. These appeals were made by the livestock owners or solicitors acting on their behalf.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in Cumbria have had sheep slaughtered in the voluntary cull; and how many sheep were affected. [159456]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: As at 2 May, 523,857 sheep had been slaughtered on around 1,800 holdings in Cumbria as part of the north Cumbria/Solway precautionary cull.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many (i) cattle and (ii) sheep on how many farms in(a) England and (b) Cumbria have been slaughtered because they were contiguous to infected premises but where the infected premises later tested negative. [159475]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information is as set out.

  England

  Cumbria

  (a) Infected premises for which laboratory tests detected no FMD virus

  224

  58

  (b) Number of premises contiguous to (a)1

  130

  9

  (c) Number of cattle slaughtered on (b)

  13,827

  1,616

  (d) Number of sheep slaughtered on (b)

  89,516

  7,322

  1Some premises may also be contiguous to other infected premises

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers his Department has to restrict the holding of car boot sales in agricultural areas during the foot and mouth outbreak. [159544]

  Ms Quin
  Article 29(3) of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 allows a veterinary inspector to prohibit by notice in writing the holding of any sporting or recreational activity on any land in an infected area specified in the notice when in his opinion the holding of such activity on that land may cause the spread of disease.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to disposing of(a) infected and (b) non-infected

  295W
  animals slaughtered during the foot and mouth crisis at sea; what advice he has received on this option; and if he will make a statement. [159424]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The UK is a Contracting Party to the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic, which does not permit the disposal of animal carcases at sea. We are also advised that there would be substantial practical and environmental problems associated with the disposal of large numbers of carcases in this way.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he first notified other EU Governments of a suspected case of foot and mouth in England during the current outbreak; [159522]

  (2) when the French Government first slaughtered sheep as a result of the current outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK; [159523]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the French Government in their investigation of the importation of foot and mouth disease-susceptible species into France, with special reference to their choice of starting date as 15 January; and if he will make a statement; [159524]

  (4) how many and on what dates consignments of animal carcases were returned to the UK by the French Government after slaughter for foot and mouth disease control reasons since 15 January. [159525]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: We notified the European Commission, and through it other EU member states, on 20 February, the day the first case was confirmed. We understand that the French authorities started slaughtering susceptible animals of UK origin and contact animals, shortly afterwards. We have kept in close touch with the French authorities about export consignments of susceptible animals from Britain. Any decision to trace these exports back to 15 January has been taken by the French authorities. No animals slaughtered for foot and mouth disease control reasons have been returned as carcases to the UK.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures he is taking to control pollutant emissions from tyres used as accelerants in the open-air burning of slaughtered livestock; [159855]

  (2) on how many disposal sites for the combustion of slaughtered livestock tyres have been used as fuel; and if he will make a statement; [159856]

  (3) if he will forbid the use of tyres as fuel in the burning of slaughtered livestock carcases. [159857]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 2 May 2001]: Those responsible for building pyres are already instructed to avoid using tyres as fuel, where possible, and their use is discouraged by the Environment Agency (EA). This practice may have continued in some cases as tyres are effective in establishing the fire, and it is important to have a well established fire at an early stage. The Prime Minister announced on 3 May that no pyres to dispose of large numbers of carcases will be lit, and so it is unlikely that the use of tyres in pyres will continue.

  It is not possible to say how many disposal sites have used tyres for combustion purposes, as disposal arrangements are made at local level.
  296W
  The Defence Establishment Research Agency is currently carrying out research into how pyres can be made more efficient. The EA and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) have been monitoring pollution from pyres; two sites in Devon are being monitored automatically and findings from this project are published on the DETR website www.detr.gov.uk and are updated daily. Dioxins are being measured in three areas in Devon. Dioxin measurements from a site in South Wales have been published www.powys.gov.uk, and have also been measured in Cumbria. The studies so far have found that pollution levels from pyres are generally low. DETR is also working with the Department of Health (DoH) looking at the possible environmental impact of pyres and guidance for siting pyres has been produced; this is available on the DoH website www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department expects to pay the outstanding invoices to Greyhound Plant Services, Oswestry in connection with foot and mouth plant services; and if he will make a statement. [160165]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: Outstanding invoices are currently being processed and should be paid under the Ministry's normal terms of payment, that is within 30 days of receipt of an undisputed invoice.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to the drawing up of maps denoting the infected area status of constituencies in Wales. [160677]

  Ms Quin
  When a case of Foot and Mouth Disease is confirmed, an Infected Area with boundaries which are at least 10 km from the infected place has to be designated by a Declaratory Order unless the area is already within an existing Infected Area. The boundaries are set by describing features and map references from the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 series. Declaratory Orders for England and Wales are made by my Department and a map depicting the infected area may be inspected in the MAFF office at 1A Page Street, London between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday to Friday. The maps are also reproduced on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to increase the scrutiny of imports at(a) ports and (b) airports as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [160503]

  Ms Quin
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his statements on 27 March and 3 May, MAFF is co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules on both commercial and personal imports at ports and airports are enforced effectively. In addition he has also asked the European Commission to give urgent attention to ensuring that the law on personal imports is clear and robust to help enable effective controls across all the Community's borders.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reliability of the different kinds of test for foot and mouth disease carried out at his Department's laboratories at Pirbright. [160742]
  297W
  Ms Quin
  The Foot and Mouth Laboratory at Pirbright is the FAO/OIE nominated World Reference Laboratory for foot and mouth disease. They employ a number of diagnostic methods. We are confident that they provide the best possible scientific advice on the disease.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farms at which his Department carried out contiguous culls of livestock were subject to laboratory tests for foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement; [161012]

  (2)how many farms that were subject to laboratory tests for foot and mouth disease as the result of the contiguous cull programme produced (a) positive evidence of the foot and mouth virus, (b) proof of the absence of the foot and mouth virus and (c) indeterminate results; and if he will make a statement. [161013]

  Ms Quin
  This information is not currently held in the format required.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has collated relating to the use of borax in the treatment of foot and mouth disease. [160715]

  Ms Quin
  We have not received any evidence relating to the effectiveness of Borax as a treatment for foot and mouth disease, nor have we received any scientific evidence to demonstrate its efficacy, safety or quality. In the absence of such evidence which would be required before Borax could be authorised as a veterinary medicinal product, claims that it is effective in preventing foot and mouth disease would be incompatible with the requirements of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 as amended. Manufacturers of such products as Borax may apply for such authorisation.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure fair and comparable standards in the valuation of livestock to he called as a result of(a) foot and mouth disease contact and (b) inclusion in the livestock welfare disposal scheme. [160753]

  Ms Quin
  The two are not directly comparable. When livestock are slaughtered for disease control purposes, compensation is paid at market value. Under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme, a payment is made to ensure welfare problems are resolved. It is not a compensation scheme and the payment rate does not reflect the full commercial value of the livestock involved.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequences of the formation of dioxins at high temperatures in the presence of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine, as a result of the use of pyres, built with creosote-soaked railway sleepers and tyres. [158867]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Guidance has been issued by the Department of Health entitled "FMD: Measures to minimise risk to public health from slaughter and disposal of animals—further guidance" to provide practical advice to those at the local level on the best way, from a public health perspective, to dispose of animal carcases (available on www.doh.gov.uk/
  298W
  fmdguidance). This includes guidance on the construction and siting of pyres which takes account of the possible risks to health from the emissions of air pollutants from the pyres At the beginning of the outbreak, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency issued a joint statement which advised that pyres should be constructed as set out in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Air Code". The code contains detailed advice on the materials to be used for the construction of pyres. This also includes advice on the materials, which should not be used as fuels in such pyres (such as plastics, rubber, and tyres), so as to minimise the production of air pollutants such as dark smoke, dioxins and furans.

  The national environmental technology centre have advised, with respect to the use of treated timbers in pyres, that "creosote treated wood is not expected to give rise to significantly higher emissions of dioxins or PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) than untreated wood". This advice, and consequences for public health, is contained within the risk assessment published by the Department of Health "Foot and Mouth—Effects on Health of Emissions from Pyres Used for Disposal Animals" available on www.doh.gov.uk.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 566W, if he will make a statement on which holding was responsible for the source of the disease, including evidence on the cause and possible transmission of classical swine fever. [158451]

  Ms Quin
  At this stage there is nothing further to add to my answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 566W.

  Throckmorton Burial Site
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he is taking to minimise(a) odour, (b) light pollution and (c) noise from the Throckmorton airfield burial site; and if he will make a statement; [159271]

  (2) what is the purpose of the floodlighting at the Throckmorton airfield burial site; for what reason the lighting operates through the night; and if he will make a statement. [159272]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Air pollution control engineers, Air Spectrum Environmental, have been contracted to deal with all aspects of odour control. A spray system is in place which has recently been increased by 300 per cent.

  Flood lighting was installed at the Throckmorton burial site, because it was originally envisaged that some work might have to be carried out after the hours of darkness in order to clear the backlog of carcases. In the event, the operation did not require a prolonged period of night working and the lights have now been switched off at night following representations from local residents.

  The facilities at the Throckmorton site are now running on mains electricity, which has allowed the generators to be switched off.
  299W

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis has been made of dioxins and other materials emitted by slow burning wood fires with particular reference to(a) foot and mouth cremation pyres and (b) forest fires. [158415]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health has recently published a risk assessment "Foot and Mouth—Effects on Health of Emissions from Tyres Used for Disposal of Animals" (available on www.doh.gov.uk). The risk assessment provides estimates of the release of dioxins and other air pollutants from pyres and predicted concentrations in air.

  My Department has undertaken air quality monitoring in the vicinity of some larger pyres, being used to dispose of animal carcases. Some local authorities have also instigated such monitoring. In addition, the Environment Agency have assisted Government by monitoring and modelling air pollution in the vicinity of pyres.

  Air quality monitoring has been undertaken at Sennybridge in Wales, and Holsworthy, Chumleigh and Okehampton in Devon. A limited survey was also undertaken around one pyre in Allerdale, Cumbria. At all sites, measurements of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particles have been made, and found to be generally low. At Sennybridge, Holsworthy, Okehampton and Allerdale monitoring for polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls has also been carried out. Dioxin concentrations in air have been reported by Powys county council, measured in the vicinity of the pyre at Sennybridge, and Allerdale district council in the vicinity of the Allerdale pyre. At these sites dioxin concentrations in air, measured at locations between 1 km and 2 km from the pyres, ranged between 2.57–8.16 fg/m3 I-TEQ. These concentrations are low when compared with average urban levels, and are of a similar order to those currently found in rural areas of the UK.

  I am not aware of any corresponding work in relation to forest fires in the UK. However the national atmospheric emissions inventory estimates that 2 per cent. (5.8g) of the UK's annual emissions in the UK in 1999 was derived from natural fires.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he will answer the questions tabled for answer on 2 April, Refs. 156280 and 156277; [159445]

  (2) when he will answer the question tabled for answer on 23 April, Ref. 158489, concerning the issuing of Form D notices to farmers by telephone. [159444]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to her on 8 May 2001, Official Report, columns 122–23W, and 128W, and on 30 April 2001, Official Report, column 493W.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he will provide a substantive answer to the question tabled for answer on 6 April. (Ref.157364); [160102]
  300W
  (2) when he will provide a substantive answer to the question from the hon. Member for Ludlow tabled for answer on 6 April (Ref.157364). [160505]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 2 and 9 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 124W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York on 27 March relating to exclusion zones (ref: 156280). [157366]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 122W.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what route sheep are being conveyed from Devon through Dorset and Hampshire for disposal in Sussex. [158101]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme all sheep slaughtered in Devon are landfilled in that county.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the benefits of relaxing controls in East Sussex on animal movements to allow movement of cattle from winter quarters to summer pasture; if he will allow such decisions to be a matter for Trading Standards officers at East Sussex County Council; and if he will make a statement. [159588]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: Local movement licences are available in East Sussex for welfare and management reasons. These licences are issued by MAFF Local Veterinary Inspectors who are usually members of local veterinary practices.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to tighten the rules concerning animal movements in the UK and the wider EU market. [160624]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The Government have no such plans at present. Our priority is the control of foot and mouth disease, as a result of which animal movements in the UK are tightly controlled under licence. Proposals to have a 20-day stop following animal movements are out for consultation. The EU is currently reviewing the directions on animal movement and the UK will play a full role in that.

  Agricultural Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the rate of agricultural export subsidies is; to which agricultural exports they apply; and if he will make a statement. [160450]

  Ms Quin
  Agricultural export subsidies, called export refunds, are paid across a range of agricultural commodities. The Common Agricultural Policy currently includes provision for export refunds for cereals, rice, sugar, olive oil, fruit and vegetables, beef, milk powders, butter, cheese, pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat and various processed products manufactured from cereals, rice, sugar, dairy products and eggs.
  301W
  Rates of refund vary between and within commodities depending on the actual product exported, the current market situation, including world prices and the euro/dollar exchange rate, and the destination. Currently there are in excess of 1,100 different rates many of which can, and do, change regularly in the light of trading conditions. For some products, the rate of export refund is currently zero. Detailed rates of refund are available, and can be obtained on request from the Intervention Board.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) turnover, (b) profit and (c) amount of revaluation was recorded by Forest Enterprise in the most recent year for which figures are available. [160406]

  Mr. Morley
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated May 2001:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the turnover, profit and revaluation figures for Forest Enterprise.In 1999–2000, Forest Enterprise made an operating deficit of £11.3m on a turnover of £95.5m. The Income and Expenditure account for Forest Enterprise shows a total deficit of £103.7m, including the net cost of Recreation, Conservation and Heritage, the deficit on sale of properties and the notional cost of capital.The Forest Estate was valued downwards by £146.0m in 1999–2000 as part of a total adjustment to the Revaluation Reserve of £144.9m.If you require any further information please let me know.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the quinquennial review of the Forest Enterprise executive agency. [161073]

  Mr. Morley
  The first stage of the review of Forest Enterprise has concluded that the agency has put in a strong performance on the sustainability of its forest management, has successfully involved communities and other stakeholders in its decision-making and has responded successfully to change—particularly devolution. The review has recommended that Forest Enterprise should retain its status as an executive agency of the Forestry Commission. Ministers in the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales have accepted these conclusions and recommendations. They intend to review the options for further decentralising handling of forestry policy and management, in the light of continuing experience of the devolved structure. The report of the first stage of the review is available on the Forestry Commission's website and will be placed in the Library.

  TB
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the destruction of a herd of fallow deer at Charlcote Park under tuberculosis regulations. [160672]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: Though both the red and fallow deer herds at Charlcote Park have been under movement restrictions because of suspect TB since
  302W
  1989 at no time has MAFF required the National Trust to cull out either herd. MAFF understand that in early April 2001 the National Trust culled the red deer herd. Any decision to cull the fallow deer herd at Charlcote will be a management decision of the National Trust.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the foot and mouth outbreak has had on(a) regular tuberculosis testing of cattle, (b) the culling of badgers for the triplet studies of TB and (c) the validity of the triplet studies of TB. [160671]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: Almost all routine testing for TB in cattle has been put on hold, with State Veterinary Service (SVS) resources diverted to deal with the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Some reactor cattle disclosed by testing carried out before the imposition of FMD movement restrictions are still being held on farms. Decisions on re-tests on inconclusive reactors and Short Interval Tests (SITs) are being made on a case-by-case basis according to the FMD situation in different Divisions of the SVS.

  The badger culling field trial has been put on hold. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB has advised MAFF officials that this should not affect the scientific validity of the trial. The Group is developing advice to MAFF on a strategy for the resumption of trial operations after the conclusion of the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) who the key official in the Intervention Board is who deals with Wales; and what his or her contact number is; [160698]

  (2) what plans he has to review the operation of the Intervention Board. [160699]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention Board administers a number of Common Agricultural Policy schemes in Wales and many of its officials are in contact with farmers and traders. The Chief Executive of the Intervention Board is Johnston McNeill, who can be contacted at the board's office in Reading, for which the telephone number is 0118 958 3626.

  The future role of the Intervention Board was recently considered as part of the Department's review of its regional structure. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 24 July 2000, Official Report, column 472W. The work of the board in administering Common Agricultural Policy schemes is being brought together with similar work being done by the Regional Service Centres in the Department to form a new Paying Agency. Johnston McNeill was appointed Chief Executive of the new Agency with effect from 2 April.

  BSE
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those hunt kennels which the state veterinary service found to be unsatisfactory under the BSE enforcement programme in the last six months. [160750]
  303W
  Ms Quin
  From November 2000 to April 2001, there were five unsatisfactory visits to hunt kennels. Details of unsatisfactory visits are reported in the BSE Enforcement Bulletin which is available on our website.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if beef over 30 months old from(a) Argentina, (b) Australia, (c) Botswana, (d) Brazil, (e) Mauritius, (f) Namibia, (g) New Zealand, (h) Paraguay, (i) Poland, (j) South Africa, (k) Switzerland, (l) Uruguay, (m) the USA and (n) Zimbabwe is considered safe for importation into and sale in the UK on animal health grounds; and if he will make a statement. [156381]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: The over-30-months rule relates solely to BSE risks and beef from animals aged over thirty months at slaughter may be imported from the countries listed as it is not considered to represent a BSE risk. The age of animals at slaughter is not relevant in respect of other animal diseases.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken at border inspection points to ensure that requirements are being met with regard to the importation of meat. [160920]

  Ms Quin
  Under EU law all meat imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIP) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments are subject to physical checks in accordance with EU legislation. Each BIP's performance is monitored by MAFF on a regular basis and subject to inspection by the European Commission to ensure these standards are met.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation has been paid to miners, ex-miners and miners' families in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in(a) the Glasgow, Pollok constituency and (b) the City of Glasgow. [160833]

  Mr. Hain
  With regard to compensation for respiratory disease, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered one claimant in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency, as defined by the postcodes G52 and G53. This claim has not been settled as yet.

  In the City of Glasgow1, there have been 53 claims initiated. In this region, 37 individual payments have been made, totalling £175,950.

  1The City of Glasgow is defined by the postcodes, G1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 32, 41, 43, 45, 51, 53, 61, 64, 72, 73, 76, 81 and 82.

  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners in the Aberavon constituency suffering from pneumoconiosis and vibration white finger had been paid compensation on the last date for which figures were available; what the total amount involved was; and what the largest single payment was. [159431]
  304W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, advise me that, to date, there have been 1,264 claims registered in the constituency of Aberavon, as defined by the postcodes SA 11–13, CF34 and 42, in respect of vibration white finger (VWF). In this region, there have been 353 individual payments totalling £1.83 million. The highest single payment made to date was £21,250. This does not include claims for services, which have only recently begun to be processed. With regard to pneumoconiosis, figures are only kept nationally.

  In relation to claims for coronary obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), IRISC have, to date, registered 3,077 claims in the constituency of Aberavon, as defined above. In this region, there have been 792 individual payments totalling £3.28 million. The single highest payment to date was £51,035.

  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners in the Aberavon constituency suffering from emphysema have been paid compensation at the latest date for which figures are available; what the total amount involved was; and what the largest single payment was. [160845]

  Mr. Hain
  The present British Coal compensation scheme for respiratory disease covers Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema and asthma in certain circumstances. Until claims are assessed, the type and level of injury suffered by claimants cannot be identified and therefore the number of claimants suffering from emphysema alone in the constituency of Aberavon cannot be determined. IRISC have, to date, registered 3,077 claims in respect of respiratory disease in the constituency of Aberavon, as defined by the postcodes SA 11–13, CF34 and 42. In this region, there have been 792 individual payments totalling £3.28 million. The single highest payment to date was £51,035.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has commissioned on the technical modifications necessary to the Sellafield MOX plant to enable the plant to process plutonium for immobilisation. [159784]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: None.

  British Shipbuilders
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry between which dates of employment and for which firms British Shipbuilders will pay damages for industrial injury in cases where there is an outstanding judgment. [160819]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally and cannot be given in the time required.

  Walsall (Funding)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been made available to the Borough of Walsall by his Department since June 1997. [160996]
  305W
  Mr. Caborn
  Since June 1997, up to the present date, the following offers of assistance have been made to businesses in the local authority district of Walsall.

  36 offers of Regional Selective Assistance totalling £2,474,000 have been made. These offers have been made towards projects with total capital investment of £17,570,360 which will create 561 jobs.

  Nine offers of Enterprise Grant have been made since the scheme was launched in March 2000. These offers involve grant of £269,000 and fixed capital investment of £2,087,070.

  Eight offers were made under the SMART (innovation) scheme. The total amount of assistance offered was £345,554, towards company projects with total investment of £683,165.

  Businesses have also been able to benefit from assistance from the Training and Enterprise Council, Business Link and a range of other DTI schemes to encourage innovation and best practice, including TCS (formerly Teaching Company Scheme).

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the funding programmes for social inclusion for which his Department is responsible that can be accessed by(a) national sports bodies and (b) local clubs and communities. [161006]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) is the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  All types of organisation can make bids to the £96 million Phoenix Fund, which promotes the provision of good quality business support for entrepreneurs from disadvantaged groups or neighbourhoods. However the fund does not directly support individual enterprises.

  Associated Newspapers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost to public funds was of his recent legal action against Associated Newspapers, with special reference to the costs associated with work done by officials. [160103]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: No bill for costs has yet been received.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) average and (b) maximum length of time taken to process export licences was in 2000. [158534]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government aim to provide a substantive response to Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications within 20 working days, except in special circumstances. The targets are set out in a Service and Performance Code published by the Export Control Organisation (ECO), and information on performance against these targets is set out in the Government's annual reports on Strategic Export Controls. In 2000, the Government processed 57 per cent. of SIEL applications within 20 working days. Within the 306W
  DTI, the ECO improved the proportion of SIEL applications on which it carried out its processing tasks within 10 working days to 79 per cent. in 2000, compared to 75 per cent. the previous year.

  The average lengths of time to process the SIEL applications completed in 2000 were:

  Mean: 26.5 working days

  Mode: 15 working days

  Median: 17 working days.

  These figures do not take account of periods during which applications were referred back to exporters for further information. These referrals occur, for example, when the nature or end-use of the goods requires further clarification.

  The longest time taken to process a SIEL finalised in 2000 was 222 working days. While this was unacceptably high, there will always be a significant proportion of cases that take longer than the 20 working day target, especially in view of the necessary consultation with other Departments and if circumstances in the intended destination are uncertain or if the application is particularly complex.

  The Government recognise the problems that delays in the processing of licence applications can entail. All Departments involved in the process are committed to fulfilling their roles effectively and efficiently. The ECO is pursuing a number of initiatives to improve the quality of decision taking and further reduce processing times, including improving the way we work with other Departments, enhanced progress chasing particularly for such longstanding casework and a general commitment to continuous improvement.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish the relevant figures for Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) applications.

  Kellogg Factory, Stretford
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on the Kellogg of Great Britain Company Ltd.'s application to build a combined heat and power station at the Kellogg factory, Stretford, Greater Manchester. [161072]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today given consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the Kellogg Company of Great Britain Limited and clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to build a 65 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Kellogg factory, Stretford, Greater Manchester. Planning permission for the station was granted subject to 36 conditions agreed with Trafford metropolitan borough council.

  Copies of the decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Pressure Selling
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints of undue pressure selling by companies have been made by(a) consumers and (b) trading standards officers in (i) Teesside, (ii) Stockton, South and (iii) nationally in the last year; and if he will list the companies against whom complaints have been made. [160875]
  307W
  Dr. Howells
  I am afraid the information is not held centrally and cannot be obtained easily in the time available before the dissolution of Parliament.

  LPG Companies
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will ask for the pricing policies of LPG companies to be investigated by the competition authorities; [160910]

  (2) what representations he has made to LPG companies regarding their pricing system, with particular reference to the variations in price from area to area. [160909]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have made no representations to LPG companies about their pricing policies or systems. Under UK competition legislation, it is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor markets and investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. It is for the Director General to decide whether action under the competition legislation is appropriate. The Director General can act if pricing levels appear to be the result of anti-competitive practices, but he has no powers to act in relation to prices as such. Any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour should be sent to the Director General.

  Environmentally Friendly Fuels
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken to provide incentives for research and investment into alternative environmentally friendly fuels. [160911]

  Mr. Hain
  The proposed Renewables Obligation will require all licensed electricity suppliers to supply a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Based on current proposals, the Obligation will provide up to £600 million by 2010 as an incentive to the renewable energy industry.

  Exemption of renewable energy from the Climate Change Levy is expected to be worth about £160 million per year by 2010.

  Continuing support for renewables through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements, which we propose to make more flexible, could rise to around £150 million per year.

  The Government have announced further funding for renewables research, development and deployment in excess of £250 million over the next three years. This includes £89 million for capital grants for offshore wind, energy crops and biomass power generation, £55.5 million for an expanded DTI R&D programme, £12 million from MAFF for their energy crops planting scheme and an initial £10 million as the first phase of a market stimulation programme for solar photovoltaic roofs. It also includes £100 million to be allocated later in the year in the light of recommendations of the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit.

  With regard to incentives for alternative transport fuels, the Powershift Programme, which is sponsored by DETR, provides grants towards the additional costs of buying gas and electric vehicles. The Government have also
  308W
  introduced a range of fiscal incentives to encourage the wider use of cleaner fuels including lower levels of fuel duty on road gas fuels.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the use of single channel 2MHz digital channels for community broadcasting. [160500]

  Janet Anderson
  Current practice is for frequency channels comprising 8MHz which provide a single analogue terrestrial service, or one digital multiplex carrying multiple programme services. I understand from the Independent Television Commission that it is unlikely to be feasible to employ channels of only 2MHz because transmissions would not be compatible with current European transmission standards and no existing digital television receivers would be capable of receiving such transmissions, in addition to other technical constraints. In planning for the transition from analogue to digital television the Government will consider all potential uses of spectrum. A post-switchover plan will be developed providing a clearer indication of the long-term prospects for local television.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to appoint a digital champion to help oversee and take forward the take-up of digital television services. [160201]

  Janet Anderson
  I have no immediate plan to appoint a digital champion, but will keep this approach under review.

  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he(a) has taken and (b) intends to take to promote uptake of digital television and, in particular, digital terrestrial television. [161014]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As we announced in "Opportunities for All in a World of Change", the Government's aim is for the UK to have the most dynamic, high quality and competitive market for digital TV in the G7, as measured by take-up, choice and cost.

  The benefits of digital television are wide-reaching: it provides better picture and sound quality, enables an increased choice of programmes, both free-to-view and paid for, and can deliver new kinds of interactive broadcast services such as home shopping and home banking. Furthermore, while universal access to the internet, which is an essential objective for the Government, is not dependent on digital television, we strongly believe that the take-up of digital television does offer a valuable opportunity for many who may not otherwise seek to do so, to have access to the internet through the use of a familiar technology.

  We are now the world leaders in the take-up of digital television with nearly 30 per cent. of households already enjoying the benefits of digital viewing. Digital satellite, available in around five million households, is now well advanced and we understand BSkyB will achieve the full switchover from analogue to digital later this year. The roll-out of digital cable is progressing well, with ntl and

  309W
  Telewest having over one million digital customers. More than one million households have already decided to receive digital television through the terrestrial platform which requires relatively little receiving equipment and is likely to be the means by which many will continue to expect to receive their television services n the foreseeable future.

  Everyday more homes move to digital but we are well aware that a significant number remain to be convinced of the benefits of making the switch. This is the reason why a number of important initiatives have been put in place recently, with the co-operation of the broadcasting industry and of the ITC, to promote the development of digital television in the UK. These initiatives are in the following areas: extension of coverage; information for consumers and research on their needs and expectations; and involvement of the stakeholders.

  Government Departments and agencies are doing all that it is possible within the framework of international spectrum management arrangements to maximise the coverage of digital. We understand that the work on the equalisation of coverage across all six multiplexes—the "core coverage"—is well advanced. We have recently written to digital broadcasters, seeking their commitment to ITC plans to double the power on eight key transmitters, allowing improvement to the signal quality, giving better, more reliable reception of free-to-air and subscription services.

  The involvement of the digital broadcasting industry is important in all areas: we will continue to meet all the stakeholders and ensure that the fair competition between them leads to an enterprising and consumer-friendly environment.

  We intend to take a strong part in progressing the plans that the ITC is making to implement a programme providing a pilot series of neighbourhoods across the country with free conversion to digital television. Our aim in this is to understand better the practical and social issues which will be faced by people in taking decisions on switching from analogue to digital television.

  These pilots will complement the findings of the Viewers Panel we established last year, and whose report, due in September, will help us to ensure that our policies are well informed by consumer concerns and needs.

  We also hope that the DVB logo, now being promoted by broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers, will help consumers to purchase digital televisions with confidence so that they are not misled into buying sets with "digital features", under the mistaken impression that they are actually purchasing equipment capable of receiving digital services. We must now discuss with the industry how best to promote this scheme to be sure that all the consumers receive the appropriate information before buying a new TV set. Alongside this initiative, we must also consider whether a public information campaign will be helpful to demystify digital television.

  We are committed to developing a strategic plan which will lead the UK to meet the criteria on affordability, availability and accessibility we have set to allow for full digital switchover within the period 2006 and 2010.
  310W

  Football Referees
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has held with the Football Association about their policy of retiring referees at 42 years of age. [159832]

  Kate Hoey
  This is entirely a matter for the Football Association, and neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have discussed it with them. However, I understand that the age limit of 42 applies only to referees who are newly appointed to officiate at matches in the Nationwide Conference and the reserve leagues of the Premiership and the Football League. There is no age limit for officials in the recreational sport, and referees who officiate at Premiership and Football League matches may continue until they are 48.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the opportunities available to Christian radio stations with analogue licences applying for digital licences. [160382]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Religious bodies are currently disqualified from holding digital radio licences and are therefore unable to apply for automatic renewal of their analogue licences, under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The White Paper "A New Future for Communications" makes clear the Government's commitment to remove the disqualification on the ownership of local digital licences by religious bodies, and invited comments on relaxing the restrictions regarding the ownership of other licences by such bodies. We are currently considering the responses made.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if Premier Christian Radio's analogue licences will automatically be renewed; and if he will make a statement. [160396]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: The Radio Authority is required automatically to re-advertise, in an open competition, all analogue local licences in areas where the number of persons, aged 15 years or over, resident in the coverage areas of that service exceeds 4.5 million. The only analogue services exempted from this requirement are those who broadcast, or are committed to broadcast, on a digital multiplex in the relevant area. As Premier Christian Radio is prohibited by current legislation from holding a digital licence, its analogue licence cannot be automatically renewed. The Government are committed to bringing forward communications legislation which would remove this prohibition.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to enable religious broadcasters to apply for terrestrial digital licences. [160395]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: The White Paper "A New Future for Communications" announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local terrestrial digital radio licence. We invited views on whether the restrictions on ownership of other terrestrial licences by religious bodies should be relaxed, and are currently considering the responses.
  311W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if applications for remaining digital radio licences for London will be determined before changes can be made to allow applications from Christian broadcasters to be entertained. [160394]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: I understand that applications for the third and final digital multiplex licence for Greater London have already been submitted, and the Radio Authority is expected to make the award in June. Legislation to correct the anomaly whereby religious bodies are prevented from holding local digital licences will be brought forward, but any such legislation could not be enacted by June.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to help tourism businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. [159904]

  Janet Anderson
  As a member of the rural task force, I have actively been proposing measures to help tourism businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. A package of financial measures to help tourist businesses was announced by the chairman of the task force on 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 191–210. In addition, an extra £24 million for RDAs across the country was announced by DETR on 7 May. This will provide direct help to thousands of rural businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, including grant aid of up to £15,000. This builds on the £15 million already given to the RDAs in the four worst affected areas to provide direct support to businesses and help with promotional campaigns.

  We have also announced a package of help for the promotion of tourism to both the domestic and international markets. On 6 April, my Department announced that £3.8 million in additional funding was being made available to the English Tourism Council (ETC) for an advertising and promotion campaign to restore public confidence in visiting the countryside. We also announced that £2.2 million in additional funding was being made available to the British Tourist Authority (BTA) for the promotion of tourism overseas. On 2 May, a further £12 million was made available to support the BTA's marketing campaigns to get the message across to our key overseas markets that Britain is still a great place for a holiday.

  Art Galleries
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the joint review of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery. [161060]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have today published the first stage report of the joint review of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery.

  The report examines the roles and functions of the galleries, and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DCMS and governmental objectives. It confirms that at the present the galleries' status as non-departmental public bodies is the best option for the delivering of their services and considers how the delivery of their services might be improved in the future.
  312W
  The publication of the report marks the end of the first stage of the review. The second stage will take forward the recommendations of the first stage and consider how the galleries' services and functions could be provided more efficiently and effectively in the future.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the overall Legal Services Commission's budget was paid to solicitors in each of the last five years in relation to class actions in the field of clinical negligence and personal injury; and what proportion of this amount related to work which could be carried out at less cost. [160246]

  Mr. Lock
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Legal Services Commission, and before it the Legal Aid Board, have taken a number of steps to improve control over the cost of multi-party actions (MPAs). Due to their potential expense, MPAs have been subject to contract control since 1992. An expert panel of solicitors who have experience in handling such litigation was established in 1999, and new arrangements introduced to allow only panel members and any firm already involved in the action to submit a tender for an MPA contract.

  Now, under the Commission's Funding Code (introduced in April 2000), cases can be put out to competitive tender among the panel members, at or below specified hourly rates. Typically, the successful firm is then awarded a contract, which regulates the remuneration and conduct of the litigation. Specialist Commission staff manage contracted cases, and those residual cases that are not under contract. As directed by the Lord Chancellor, the Commission has set aside a budget for special cases, of which MPAs are one type. This commenced when the Commission's Funding Code came into effect. In 2001–02 this budget is £4.5 million.

  Under the new scheme, the Commission will fund personal injury MPAs only when the action has a significant wider public interest. Funding by the LSC will generally be concentrated only on the central or generic work on the action, leaving individual claims to be pursued under conditional fee agreements.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the Legal Services Commission paid in each of the last five years to claimants' solicitors in relation to the investigation and running of clinical negligence claims against the NHS; and what proportion of this amount related to payments made to solicitors in relation to the initial investigation of the viability of claims. [160245]

  Mr. Lock
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  313W
  The Legal Services Commission records the value of main bills paid, comprising solicitors' costs, disbursements and Counsel's fees. The total figures for each year also include the value of claims which are met in full by the opponents. The net cost to the fund of clinical negligence cases is therefore less than the figures given.

  £million

  1995–96

  50.6

  1996–97

  56.9

  1997–98

  64.4

  1998–99

  64.6

  1999–2000

  60.6

  It is not possible to identify separately claims against the NHS from claims against GPs and dentists; nor is it possible to identify separately claims against private practitioners from those working in the NHS. The Commission does not record separately amounts claimed for different stages in proceedings, and it is therefore not possible to report separately the cost of initial investigations. Prior to the introduction of civil contracting in January 2000 clinical negligence was not separately identified as a category of advice work. The figures in the table therefore do not provide information regarding payments for advice and assistance work done under the former Green Form system.

  A number of measures have been introduced to seek to improve the value for money achieved in clinical negligence cases. From August 1999 only clinical negligence specialists who hold licences with the Commission have been able to provide publicly funded services in new cases. The Commission has a contract with Action for Victims of Medical Accidents (AVMA) to provide a merits screening test in clinical negligence cases; this expertise now supports the process of deciding which cases to fund. New guidance and tougher criteria have also been introduced and are aimed at restricting funding for lower value and weaker claims. Consequently there has been an increase in the proportion of claims that were found to lack merit, and were discontinued after the initial investigation, from 51 per cent. in 1996–97 to 60 per cent. in 1999–2000. There has also been an improvement in the success rate of claims that proceed beyond the initial investigation, from 46 per cent. in 1996–97 to 61 per cent. in 1999–2000. The discontinuation at an earlier stage of cases that lack legal merit represents an improvement in value for money. The reforms are also reflected in the number of new certificates issued annually for clinical negligence claims, which are just over half the totals being issued five years ago.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Vision 20/20
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if her Department has given(a) practical and (b) financial backing of the World bank loan for the Vision 20/20 proposals; [159760]
  314W
  (2) what representations she has made to the World bank in support of Vision 20/20; and what scale of World bank loan this has resulted in. [159761]

  Clare Short
  We share the objectives underpinning the 20/20 initiative, but have reservations about its capacity to influence implementation of poverty reduction objectives. The 20/20 idea is based on inputs rather than effective use of resources. While it encourages desirable attention to social programmes, it does not ensure that resources will be directed to the meeting of the International Development targets. As far as we are aware, the World bank is not proposing to provide financial support to the 20/20 initiative.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid and assistance the Government have provided to the people of Chernobyl since 1986; and how much is planned to be made available over the next three years. [160976]

  Mr. Mullin
  Most UK assistance in response to the Chernobyl disaster is provided through the European Community and through our bilateral aid programmes. In total we have spent over £42 million since 1986.

  Most of our support has funded the rebuilding of the sarcophagus and essential decommissioning facilities at Chernobyl through the Chernobyl Shelter Fund and the Nuclear Safety Account.

  We also give modest direct support to Chernobyl charities, especially those helping children affected by the 1986 disaster.

  We expect to continue work in all these areas over the next three years.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of senior civil servants in her Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week; and if she will make a statement. [160883]

  Mr. Mullin
  None. DFID's policy is that its employees should not be required to work in excess of the limits specified by the Working Time Regulations 1998 and none have been asked to do so.

  Botswana
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's policies in respect of poverty reduction in Botswana. [160829]

  Mr. Mullin
  Botswana's record in pursuing effective poverty reduction policies is one of the strongest in Africa, although many of the gains made are under threat from the HIV/AIDS epidemic. DFID has contributed substantially to the Government of Botswana's poverty reduction programmes focusing particularly on rural livelihoods, education and more recently in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In the financial year 2000–01, DFID provided around £2.5 million directly to Botswana in addition to our contributions through multilateral agencies.
  315W

  EU Trade Regulations
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the Netherlands' proposals for reform of EU trade regulations relating to overseas countries and territories. [159743]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Netherlands have proposed amendments to the European Commission's proposal for a new Council Decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Community (the "OCT Decision"). The Commission's proposal maintains full freedom of access to the EC market for products originating in the OCTs, subject to special provisions for rice and sugar. The Netherlands' amendments would increase the proposed quota for milled or semi-milled rice, and would allow an additional quota for sugar which has undergone processing disallowed under the Commission proposal. The Netherlands have also suggested an alternative process for the management of these quotas. The Government are still assessing the implications of these amendments. In Council working groups, discussion is at an early stage.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Racially Aggravated Offences
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions for racially aggravated offences have been taken up by the Crown Prosecution Service; in how many cases the defendant was(a) convicted and (b) acquitted; and how many cases the Crown Prosecution Service did not pursue. [160999]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, the CPS received 2,417 racist incident cases from the police. Prosecutions were brought against 1,832 defendants (76 per cent.) on a total of 2,651 charges. Cases against 585 defendants (24 per cent.) were discontinued, dropped at court or could not be prosecuted because the defendant failed to appear.

  Almost half (1,299) of the 2,651 charges were for racially aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which came into force in September 1999. A high proportion of the remaining offences contained admissible evidence of racial aggravation and were prosecuted under other legislation.

  Information kept by the CPS on convictions and acquittals relates to charges rather than defendants. Guilty pleas were entered on 66 per cent. of the charges prosecuted and there were convictions after trial on a further 12 per cent. of the charges. There were acquittals on 16 per cent. of the charges and the remaining charges resulted in other forms of disposal, eg bindover without trial.

  Further information is available from the CPS Racist Incident Monitoring Report 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  316W

  Union Flag
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance he will give to the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of motorists displaying the Union Flag on car number plates. [161033]

  The Solicitor-General
  The size and character of car number plates (properly known as registration marks) and of the letters and numbers shown on them is governed by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

  There is no provision which specifically prohibits the display of items, such as the Union Flag, on a registration mark. However, an offence is committed if a registration mark fixed on a vehicle is in any way obscured. This may be as a result of fixing another item to the registration mark or by simply allowing it to become so masked by dirt as to be no longer easily distinguishable.

  The offence can be dealt with only in a magistrates court and is punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. If the police refer evidence of such an offence to the Crown Prosecution Service, it will be reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and, if appropriate, criminal proceedings will then result.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the projects undertaken for her Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144087]

  Mr. Stringer
  Since 1 May 1997 my Department has let 216 projects the total value of which is as follows:(a) Outside consultants: £13,079,903
  (b) Academic researchers and university departments: £230,741.

  A list of the projects undertaken with identifiable external consultancy costs has been placed in the Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of senior civil servants in her Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week; and if she will make a statement. [160892]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Five per cent.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the companies with which the then Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had discussions regarding sponsorship of the millennium dome. [148376]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the then Minister Without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had contact
  317W
  with sponsors from time to time, but the responsibility for negotiating and securing sponsorship rested with the NMEC. It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of ministerial meetings or discussions with companies or private individuals.

  Government Annual Report 1999–2000
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason the Government's Annual report for 1999–2000 was issued as an unnumbered Command Paper. [158117]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government Annual Report 1999–2000 was printed and published by the Stationery Office Ltd. (ISBN number 0–10–850638–6). It was issued as an unnumbered Command Paper to provide flexibility in the production and distribution process. It was presented to Parliament, published and distributed as usual for Command Papers, as well as being available from Tesco and WH Smith.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions special advisers who have left the Government since 1997 have been examined by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if she will make a statement. [160260]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Under the terms of their contracts, special advisers are subject to the Business Appointment Rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code and Departmental Staff Handbooks. They are required to make an application to their employing Department for permission to take up outside appointments under the criteria set out in the rules. Where appropriate, Departments consult the Cabinet Office. Applications from the most senior staff would he referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, but none has been received from special advisers at this level.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many special advisers worked in her Department from 1997 to date. [160027]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Since 3 May 1997, no more than four special advisers have been in post at any one time. This includes the UK Anti Drugs co-ordinator and his Deputy who are appointed on special adviser terms.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the funding programmes for social inclusion for which her Department is responsible that can be accessed by(a) national sports bodies and (b) local clubs and communities. [161002]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Cabinet Office is not directly responsible for any funding for social inclusion programmes.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate(a) the numbers of deaths due to drug use and misuse, (b) the numbers of injuries and finished consultant episodes related to drug use and
  318W
  misuse and (c) the direct costs of care, treatment, investigation and damage caused by drug use and misuse in each year since 1995. [157835]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Office for National Statistics reports that the number of deaths due to drug misuse in 1999 was 2,943; this figure includes deaths from illicit and licit drug use. The figures provided include deaths from drug dependence, non-dependent abuse, accidents, suicides and homicide. The figures for previous years are as follows: 1998–2,922; 1997–2,858; 1996–2,721; and 1995–2,563. Figures in relation to the numbers of injuries and finished consultant episodes related to drug use and misuse are not available as they are not collected centrally.

  In terms of the direct costs of treatment of drug use and misuse, the only figures available are from the treatment strand of expenditure from the Drug Action Team returns for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The figure for 1998–99 was approximately £165.7 million and the figure for 1999–2000 was approximately £151.8 million. Information on the indirect costs of the damage resulting from drug misuse are unavailable as they are not collected centrally.

  Ombudsman Review
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman review. [144200]

  Mr. Stringer
  [pursuant to the reply, 17 January 2001, c. 332]: This was a major review and we have received 174 responses, which we are considering carefully. Any announcement on the outcome of the consultation will be made in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the variation between actual expenditure on Housing Benefit and expenditure projected in the FSR for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms. [160974]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Total Housing Benefit expenditure

  £million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Outturn

  11,068

  11,177

  1—

  Projected expenditure

  11,221

  11,247

  11,257

  Variance

  –153

  –70

  1—

  Variance (percentage)2

  –1

  –1

  1—

  1Not yet available.

  2Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Figures underlie those shown in the relevant Financial Statement and Budget Reports for total Social Security expenditure.
  319W

  Pension Clawback
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Irish Government concerning pension clawback. [160680]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Benefits
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated total value is of the benefits available in cash and in kind, including accommodation, to a family with two unemployed adults and two children, broken down by type of benefit, in the financial year 2001–02. [160635]

  Angela Eagle
  There is a wide range of benefits which may be available including Jobseeker's Allowance and Child Benefit. Unemployed homeowners can benefit from help with their mortgage interest payments, while Housing Benefit can help meet accommodation costs for those who rent their homes. Council Tax Benefit is available to help meet council tax liabilities. However, the benefits and the amounts available will vary greatly depending on individual circumstances. Benefits in kind will also vary depending on the schemes operated by the local authority.

  Walsall (Funding)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funding has been made available to the borough of Walsall by his Department since June 1997. [160997]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department provides subsidy to local authorities in respect of their expenditure on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and the administration of these schemes. The amounts of these subsidies paid each year to Walsall borough are in the table.

  Period

  £

  June 1997 to March 1998

  21,085,206

  April 1998 to March 1999

  26,306,110

  April 1999 to March 2000

  27,533,011

  April 2000 to March 2001

  27,933,936

  Departmental Policies (Glasgow, Pollok)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Glasgow, Pollok constituency the effects on Glasgow, Pollok of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [160831]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.
  320W
  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Glasgow, Pollok since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit is worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from this April: nationally about 7 million families receive child Benefit, and in Glasgow, Pollok 8,550 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed. the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Glasgow, Pollok the number has reduced from 3,000 to 2,000. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Glasgow, Pollok the number has decreased from 2,400 to 2,300.

  Older people ate disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. Last winter (2000–01), the payment was £200 for households who qualified. Around 13,000 older people in Glasgow, Pollok received a Winter Fuel Payment.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 13,100 pensioners in Glasgow, Pollok will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 4,900 in Glasgow, Pollok. 3,600 pensioner families in Glasgow, Pollok are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. They are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  To help tomorrow's pensioners, we have introduced the new stakeholder pension which is designed to help those on moderate to higher earnings who do not have access to an occupational pension; lower to moderate earners will benefit when we introduce the State Second Pension in April 2002; and from 2003, the Pension Credit will mean that pensioners will for the first time be rewarded, not penalised, for saving.
  321W

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average length of time is that people spend on Incapacity Benefit in(a) Glasgow, Pollok, (b) the City of Glasgow, (c) Scotland and (d) the UK. [160830]

  Mr. Bayley
  The average duration of Incapacity Benefit for claims terminated in the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 is 1,094 days in Scotland and 1,027 days in Great Britain. If people who leave Incapacity Benefit for Retirement Pension are excluded, the average duration is 525 days in Scotland and 500 days in Great Britain.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claims.

  2. Information is not available by constituency or local authority area.

  3. The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security matters within Northern Ireland.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to amend the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme to include those who have been affected by vaccination but who are over the age of 21; [160915]

  (2) if he will seek to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to allow payments to be made to a person damaged by vaccine, irrespective of the age of that person, and when the damage occurred. [160916]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Vaccine Damage Payments (VDP) scheme is principally aimed at those vaccinated as part of the Department of Health-recommended childhood vaccination programme, although exceptions are made in cases such as polio and rubella where such vaccinations are more routinely given into adulthood. Given this basis those claiming a VDP must generally have been vaccinated before their 18 birthday.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June 2000, we propose to amend the time limit for claiming a VDP so that a claim must be made on or before the date on which a vaccinated person attains the age of 21, or within six years of the date of the vaccination to which the claim relates, whichever is the later. We have no further plans to amend age limit provisions.

  State Retirement Pension (Women)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged over 60 years have not claimed their state retirement pension. [160980]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if individuals who claim disablement as a result of participating in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down are entitled to receive the case notes of their application for an award from the War Pension Agency. [160495]
  322W
  Mr. Bayley
  No, individuals are not entitled to receive the War Pensions Agency's case notes relating to their application for a War Pension.

  However, under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, individuals will have the right of access to clerical information from 24 October 2001.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will calculate the outstanding liability to the state second pension for each of the next 40 years, in current price terms, and if all workers turning 25 years were from 2002 automatically contracted out of the state second pension at the standard occupational pension rate. [160524]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The benefit expenditure on State Second Pension is shown in the table.

  £billion

  Year

  Cost

  2001–02

  0.0

  2002–03

  0.0

  2003–04

  0.0

  2004–05

  0.1

  2005–06

  0.1

  2006–07

  0.2

  2007–08

  0.4

  2008–09

  0.5

  2009–10

  0.7

  2010–11

  0.9

  2011–12

  1.1

  2012–13

  1.3

  2013–14

  1.5

  2014–15

  1.7

  2015–16

  2.0

  2016–17

  2.2

  2017–18

  2.4

  2018–19

  2.7

  2019–20

  2.9

  2020–21

  3.2

  2021–22

  3.6

  2022–23

  4.0

  2023–24

  4.4

  2024–25

  4.9

  2025–26

  5.3

  2026–27

  5.8

  2027–28

  6.3

  2028–29

  6.9

  2029–30

  7.5

  2030–31

  8.0

  2031–32

  8.6

  2032–33

  9.1

  2033–34

  9.7

  2034–35

  10.2

  2035–36

  10.7

  2036–37

  11.3

  2037–38

  11.9

  2038–39

  12.4

  2039–40

  12.9

  2040–41

  13.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures are expressed in 2001–02 price terms.

  2. Costs allow for the introduction of stakeholder pensions and assume State Second Pension becomes a flat-rate scheme in 2006–07.

  3. There is no additional benefit expenditure for these years if all employed earners turning 25 years contract out of the State scheme from 2002.
  323W

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158552]

  Mr. Rooker
  Special Advisers made no official visits overseas between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is provided by his Department's Family Resources Survey of the number of couples, married or unmarried, with at least one dependent child where both partners are in paid employment or self-employment, each earning less than £34,000 per annum and whose combined income is in excess of(a) £38,000, (b) £40,000, (c) £45,000 and (d) £50,000. [159446]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information is in the table.

  The number of couples, with at least one dependent child where both partners are in paid employment, each earning less than £34.000 per annum and whose combined income from earnings are in excess of the following specified levels

  Combined earnings in excess of:

  Number of couples

  (£ per annum)

  (Million)

  38,000

  0.4

  40,000

  0.3

  45,000

  0.2

  50,000

  0.1

  Notes:

  1. Earnings are defined as gross payment for full-time, part-time employment and/or self-employment. The estimates of the number of couples are cumulatively above the specified earnings level and therefore should not be summed.

  2. All figures are estimates and are derived from the FRS. The FRS does not include Northern Ireland, and 1998–99 is the latest year for which data are available.

  3. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of other demographic variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which categories of civil servants will not be offered stakeholder pensions; for what reasons; and how many people will be affected. [160124]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  A designated stakeholder arrangement will be introduced, under the access requirements of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, for those civil servants

  KPI

  Target

  Actual

  Category A prisoner escapes

  0

  0

  Total escapes, as a percentage of the average prison population

  0.05 per cent.

  0.03 per cent.

  Contractor escapes, as a ratio per 20,000 prisoners handled

  1:20,000

  1:21,649

  Proven adjudications of assault, as a percentage of the average prisoner population

  9 per cent.

  9.9 per cent.

  324W
  not eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Access will therefore be mainly provided for some 12,000 casual employees.

  Additionally, access to the designated stakeholder arrangement will be available to those members of the PCSPS, earning below £30,000, who wish to use this route as an alternative or supplement to the scheme's additional voluntary contribution arrangements.

  Work is also being taken forward on a new pension scheme for the civil service. This will provide new entrants with a choice between improved defined benefit arrangements and a new defined contribution plan. The defined contribution plan will be delivered through stakeholder pension products. Existing members of the PCSPS will be given the choice of remaining with the current benefit structure or of paying the higher employee contributions associated with the new defined benefit arrangement. The intention is to launch the new pension scheme from 1 October 2002.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators in 2001–01; and if he will make a statement. [161015]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Key Performance Indicators (KPI) results for 2000–01 for the Prison Service are given in the table. The data are provisional and subject to final validation.

  The results are extremely encouraging. The improvement in security is impressive—especially the reduction in escapes from prison establishments. There were 11 last year, compared with 30 in 1999–2000 and 232 as recently as 1992–93. The downward trend in drug misuse has continued and performance is well ahead of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target. The level of drug abuse has fallen by 49 per cent. since 1996–97. The Service met the overall target for the number of prisoners completing accredited offending behaviour programmes and increased the overall number of completions by 30 per cent. on the previous year and by more than 93 per cent. on the number achieved in 1998–99. The purposeful activity target would have been met but for a sharp rise in the prisoner population since December, and I believe, could have been met despite the increase in population had governors not responded to encouragement to concentrate investment in education and offending behaviour courses which provide high quality activity but for small numbers of prisoners.

  The Director General of the Prison Service has introduced new arrangements for dealing with the high levels of staff sickness in the Service and although the basic skills targets were not met, it is very encouraging to note that prisoners achieved more than 50,000 separate certificates last year, 12,500 of them at basic skills level 2.
  325W

  KPI

  Target

  Actual

  Rate of positive random drug tests

  16

  12.4

  Number of voluntary drug testing compacts

  28,000

  77,861

  Percentage of the population held two to a cell designed for one (doubling)

  18 per cent.

  17.2 per cent.

  Average weekly purposeful hours per prisoner

  24 hours

  23.8 hours

  The proportion of prisoners discharged with basic skills in literacy below level 2

  52.8 per cent.

  76.6 per cent.

  The proportion of prisoners discharged with basic skills in numeracy below level 2

  61.9 per cent.

  67.6 per cent.

  Accredited offending behaviour programme completions

  5,000

  6,041

  Accredited sex offender treatment programme completions

  1,020

  848

  Cost per uncrowded prison place

  £27,031

  £27,022

  Cost per prisoner

  £26,118

  £27,566

  Average staff sickness days

  11.25 days

  13.6 days

  Public correspondence replied within 20 days

  95 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  Average telephone response time (Headquarters only)

  12 seconds

  12 seconds

  Percentage abandoned telephone calls (Headquarters only)

  5 per cent.

  7.2 per cent.

  Mrs. G. A. Officer
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will complete consideration of the case relating to the wife of Mr. G. A. Officer, a constituent. [160733]

  Mrs. Roche
  Mrs. Officer was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on 28 April.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of(a) the number of asylum seekers dispersed throughout the UK, (b) the number who are locating in London and (c) the number being offered accommodation by the Refugee Council on behalf of the National Asylum Support Service. [160793]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of March 2001, 23,5301 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and 13,4701 (including dependants) were allocated voucher-only support by NASS.

  Of the above, 5201 were allocated accommodation in London and 9,4201 of those allocated voucher-only support were staying in London.

  It is NASS policy to offer asylum seekers accommodation outside London and the south-east. However, in special circumstances, such as medical problems, some asylum seekers are allocated accommodation in London.

  As at 27 April 2001, the Refugee Council was accommodating 5,2301 asylum seekers (including dependants) in emergency accommodation on behalf of NASS. Of these, 4,4101 were in London.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seeker applicants opted for vouchers only, including dependants; and how many have accepted dispersal. [160790]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of March 2001, 13,4701 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated voucher-only support by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and 23,5301 (including dependants) were allocated accommodation by NASS.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10.
  326W
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to take full financial responsibility for asylum seekers and their dependants in place of local authority responsibility. [160792]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office assumed responsibility on 1 April 1999 for reimbursing local authorities for direct costs incurred, within unit cost limits for supporting asylum seekers. Payment is by way of grant.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated total value is of the benefits available in vouchers, in cash and in kind, including accommodation, to an asylum-seeking family with two adults and two children which is being supported by NASS, broken down by type of benefit, in the financial year 2001–02. [160634]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum seekers in need can be supported with accommodation, subsistence or both. The current weekly value of voucher support for a family consisting of a couple and two children, aged 16 or younger, is £119.27, of which £40.00 is paid in cash vouchers. Accommodation is provided directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  An asylum-seeking family in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation has their utility bills paid by NASS. This in-kind support is estimated to be worth around £18 per week. In addition, NASS accommodation includes items not generally included in furnished accommodation, such as towels, bedding, cooking utensils, crockery and cutlery, at an estimated value of around £5 per week. After six months, NASS-supported asylum seekers are also eligible for a one-off payment of £50 per person.

  If the children are new-born the family may be eligible for a maternity payment of £300 per child.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of asylum appeals determined were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed and (c) withdrawn for nationals of (i) Iraq, (ii) Somalia, (iii) Sri Lanka, (iv) Sudan, (v) Turkey, (vi) Zimbabwe and (vii) each other nationality for the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [160802]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum appeal figures by nationality for 1999 and 2000 are not available as the Immigration Appellate Authority ceased to produce them. We hope to
  327W
  be able to publish this information for the 2001 asylum statistics and beyond. The most recent figures refer to 1998 and are published in the Home Office Statistical

  Asylum appeals: Table 8.2 Outcome of appeals1 under the 1993 and 1996 Acts determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1998

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Nationality

  Appeals sent to the IAA

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Europe

  Albania

  80

  75

  10

  10

  65

  86

  5

  4

  Czech Republic

  105

  130

  5

  2

  100

  78

  25

  20

  Poland

  450

  665

  10

  1

  595

  89

  60

  9

  Romania

  470

  665

  5

  0

  620

  93

  45

  7

  Slovak Republic

  90

  125

  5

  2

  80

  64

  40

  34

  Turkey

  545

  1,405

  530

  38

  805

  57

  70

  5

  Former USSR

  925

  635

  30

  5

  540

  85

  65

  10

  Former Yugoslavia

  165

  335

  50

  15

  140

  41

  145

  43

  Other

  590

  1,000

  20

  2

  905

  90

  75

  8

  Total

  3,415

  5,035

  655

  13

  3,845

  76

  535

  11

  Americas

  Colombia

  560

  400

  40

  10

  315

  80

  40

  10

  Ecuador

  1,240

  600

  5

  1

  525

  87

  70

  12

  Other

  130

  235

  15

  7

  205

  87

  15

  6

  Total

  1,930

  1,230

  60

  5

  1,045

  85

  125

  10

  Africa

  Algeria

  95

  235

  40

  17

  135

  58

  60

  25

  Angola

  110

  500

  90

  18

  385

  78

  20

  4

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  20

  195

  30

  15

  120

  62

  40

  21

  Ethiopia

  65

  250

  55

  22

  175

  69

  25

  10

  Gambia

  210

  380

  25

  6

  330

  87

  25

  7

  Ghana

  430

  1,700

  35

  2

  1,585

  93

  85

  5

  Ivory Coast

  165

  365

  95

  26

  250

  68

  20

  5

  Kenya

  360

  860

  85

  10

  730

  85

  50

  6

  Liberia

  45

  105

  5

  3

  95

  91

  5

  7

  Nigeria

  1,775

  4,085

  140

  3

  3,675

  90

  265

  7

  Sierra Leone

  60

  175

  20

  12

  110

  63

  45

  25

  Somalia

  15

  25

  5

  19

  20

  67

  5

  15

  Sudan

  70

  190

  85

  45

  80

  43

  20

  12

  Tanzania

  150

  920

  25

  3

  860

  93

  35

  4

  Uganda

  215

  495

  50

  10

  420

  85

  25

  5

  Other

  430

  605

  90

  15

  460

  76

  55

  9

  Total

  4,225

  11,085

  875

  8

  9,425

  85

  785

  7

  Middle East

  Iran

  35

  150

  60

  40

  75

  51

  15

  9

  Iraq

  25

  45

  15

  29

  25

  51

  10

  20

  Lebanon

  15

  65

  15

  20

  50

  74

  5

  6

  Other

  40

  100

  15

  13

  75

  72

  15

  15

  Total

  115

  360

  100

  27

  220

  61

  40

  11

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  15

  15

  5

  36

  10

  64

  —

  0

  China

  975

  1,230

  20

  2

  1,200

  97

  10

  1

  India

  1,040

  2,445

  25

  1

  2,355

  96

  65

  3

  Pakistan

  1,590

  2,570

  85

  3

  2,330

  91

  155

  6

  Sri Lanka

  745

  1,040

  495

  48

  510

  49

  30

  3

  Other

  320

  210

  10

  4

  185

  87

  20

  9

  Total

  4,680

  7,515

  640

  9

  6,590

  88

  280

  4

  Other and nationality not known

  30

  95

  20

  22

  75

  75

  5

  3

  Grant total

  14,385

  25,320

  2,355

  9

  21,195

  84

  1,770

  7

  1Provisional estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5 with *=1 or 2. Figures might not add up to total due to rounding. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

  2Figures are based on the cases for which information is recorded on the Refugee Index.

  328W
  Bulletin "Asylum Statistics 1998", a copy of which is available in the Library. The information is given in the table.
  329W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the places designated as clusters for the dispersal of asylum seekers, indicating the(a) population and (b) ethnic minority population of each. [160847]

  Mrs. Roche
  The areas designated as clusters are listed together with population figures. Research to identify the presence of ethnic minorities included advice received from consultation with regional consortium, voluntary groups and other interested parties plus evidence from the 1991 census. Actual statistics detailing the present ethnic minority population for each cluster area are not available.

  Region/cluster area

  Population estimate per cluster

  East Midlands

  Leicester

  294,300

  Derby

  235,800

  Nottingham

  286,800

  South Central and East

  Brighton and Hove

  255,800

  Hastings and St Leonards

  81,400

  Portsmouth

  189,900

  North East

  Darlington

  101,400

  Gateshead

  198,900

  Middlesbrough

  145,100

  Newcastle

  276,100

  North Tyneside

  194,000

  South Tyneside

  154,600

  Redcar and Cleveland

  138,300

  Hartlepool

  91,900

  Stockton on Tees

  181,000

  Sunderland

  292,300

  North West

  Manchester (Great Manchester)

  429,800

  Bolton (Great Manchester)

  267,500

  Bury (Great Manchester)

  182,800

  Oldham (Great Manchester)

  219,200

  Rochdale (Great Manchester)

  208,200

  Salford (Great Manchester)

  225,900

  Stockport (Great Manchester)

  292,800

  Tameside (Great Manchester)

  220,400

  Trafford (Great Manchester)

  220,300

  Wigan (Great Manchester)

  310,500

  Burnley

  91,000

  Blackburn

  140,000

  Liverpool

  461,500

  Nelson

  29,120

  Scotland

  Glasgow

  619,680

  Edinburgh

  450,180

  South West

  Bristol

  402,300

  Gloucester

  107,400

  Swindon

  179,700

  Taunton and Bridgewater

  199,700

  Exeter

  111,000

  South Gloucestershire

  241,000

  Torbay

  123,000

  North Somerset

  188,700

  Bath

  167,300

  Plymouth

  253,000

  East of England

  Ipswich

  113,900

  Norwich

  124,000

  Cambridge

  120,600

  Great Yarmouth

  89,300

  Peterborough

  156,000

  330W

  Region/cluster area

  Population estimate per cluster

  Wales

  Wrexham

  125,200

  Cardiff

  320,900

  Newport

  139,200

  Swansea

  229,500

  Bridgend and Porthcawl

  131,400

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,013,400

  Coventry

  304,300

  Dudley

  311,500

  Sandwell

  290,500

  Solihull

  205,600

  Stoke on Trent

  251,500

  Walsall

  261,200

  Wolverhampton

  241,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford/Keighley

  483,300

  Doncaster

  290,500

  Halifax

  91,069

  Hull

  261,800

  Kirklees

  390,900

  Leeds

  727,400

  Rotherham

  254,400

  Sheffield

  531,100

  Barnsley

  228,100

  Grimsby

  90,703

  Wakefield

  318,800

  1Shown as Taunton Deane

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the places on which he plans to confer cluster status for the dispersal of asylum seekers, indicating the(a) population and (b) ethnic minority population of each. [160848]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are already 71 cluster areas in existence, and research and consultation through the regional consortium continue in order to identify other suitable areas.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the boundaries of the Grimsby cluster for the dispersal of asylum seekers; and what proportion of the population the ethnic minority population represents. [160849]

  Mrs. Roche
  The boundary of the cluster area for Grimsby is centred on the town itself. Statistics showing what proportion of the population are from ethnic minorities are not available.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers he intends to disperse to the Grimsby cluster; and what proportion of these will be accommodated by(a) the local council and (b) private accommodation providers. [160850]

  Mrs. Roche
  At present the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has procured 57 bedspaces through the private sector in Grimsby, and, while further accommodation is being explored, we are not seeking to disperse large numbers there. The intention is to achieve a fair and equitable dispersal.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposals for widening the Grimsby cluster for asylum seekers to include Cleethorpes; and what effect they will have on the size of the ethnic minority population of the cluster. [160852]
  331W
  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service continuously researches and seeks advice on possible new cluster areas. There has been no proposal to include Cleethorpes as part of the Grimsby cluster area.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the remit of the NASS Performance Monitoring Inspection Team; how many inspectors it employs; and what are the performance targets against which its performance is measured; [159775]

  (2) what procedures are in place to investigate complaints of sub-standard accommodation from people seeking asylum who are living in accommodation contracted through NASS; how NASS monitors its performance in providing accommodation of a proper standard; and what performance targets are in place in relation to this. [159776]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer I May 2001]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has established a contract manager for each of its contracts with accommodation providers who is responsible for investigating complaints about the standard of accommodation. These investigations will either be carried out by the contract manager or by one of the chartered surveying firms employed by NASS as and when required.

  The main remit of the NASS Performance Monitoring Inspection Team is the assessment of housing management put in place by all NASS contractors.

  The current staffing level of the NASS Performance Monitoring Inspection Team is one Head of Inspections Senior Executive Officer (SEO), four Team Leaders Higher Executive Officer (HEO), 15 Inspectors Executive Officers (EO) and six support staff. All non-support staff are engaged in personally inspecting the accommodation and the support services that contractors are required to provide to NASS service users.

  The NASS Performance Monitoring Inspections team has no formal targets for the proportion of asylum seeker accommodation to be inspected. However, regular reviews of the management practices in place by accommodation providers are undertaken together with consultation with service users and independent property inspections to ensure that accommodation services are provided to the required standard.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2001, to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond)Official Report, columns 708–09W, on terrorist organisations, what assessment he has made of the impact of proscribing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam on the Norwegian peace initiative between the LITE and the Sri Lankan Government; what representations he has received from Tamil organisations in the United Kingdom since the proscription of the LTTE; what representations he has received from the Norwegian Government since the proscription of the LTTE; and what criteria he will use to consider the de-proscription of the LTTE. [160712]
  332W
  Mr. Straw
  In considering whether to proscribe the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), I took full account of the information available to me, including that about the Sri Lankan peace process. I am satisfied that as an organisation the LTTE is 'concerned in terrorism' as defined by the Act and that it was appropriate for me to exercise my discretion to proscribe.

  Since the proscription of the LTTE was agreed by Parliament and came into force on 29 March, I have received a small number of representations from Tamil organisations. I have received none from the Norwegian Government. I would be unlikely to revisit any decision to proscribe unless the organisation concerned had demonstrated a convincing renunciation of terrorism. This approach is consistent in respect of all the 35 proscribed organisations listed in Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

  The United Kingdom will continue to support the Norwegian Government in their efforts to facilitate peace talks.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the Prison Service Union to discuss the regime for prisoners and staffing at HMP Blakenhurst. [160705]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Director General of the Prison Service has met with the Prison Service Union (PSU) representatives at Blakenhurst and assured them that the service will meet its obligations set out in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Governor-designate will consult the PSU regarding arrangements for implementation of the new regime. Management of the Prison Service will then meet with the PSU representatives this month.

  While we recognise that the PSU represents a number of prison officers throughout the Prison Service, the overwhelming majority choose to be represented by the Prison Officers Association (POA).

  As this is an operational matter, negotiations with the PSU should be conducted by Prison Service officials and it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to meet them.

  Drugs
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, broken down by type of drug, were(a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against in a magistrates court and (c) tried at the Crown court for possession of a prescribed drug in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999 and (v) 2000, in each police authority in England and Wales. [160740]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Although information is collected on cautions and convictions for drug offences, published breakdowns are not available in the specific form detailed in the question. It would be possible to provide such information only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Area Tables of the Home Office bulletin "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom" give breakdowns by main type of controlled drug or by

  333W

  main offence type for individual police force areas. In addition, the Supplementary Tables provide information at a United Kingdom level for the main drug types broken down by type of drug offence and main police and court disposals. Copies of these publications, for the period up to and including 1999, are available in the Library.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was(a) spent and (b) allocated by his Department on tackling problems relating to drugs in respect of (i) improving international co-operation to reduce supplies from abroad, tip increasing the effectiveness of police and Customs enforcement, (iii) maintaining effective deterrents and tight domestic controls, (iv) developing prevention publicity, education and community action and (v) improving treatment and rehabilitation in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000. [160739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is one of a number of Government Departments which spend money to reduce the supply of drugs, to prevent them from being taken, to reduce their harmful effects and to break the link between drugs and crime. Their actions are brought together under the Government's 10-year National Anti-Drugs Strategy launched in May 1998, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain".

  While we do not have information to answer all aspects of the question, it is hoped that the following may assist.

  International Co-operation

  In each of the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01, the Home Office spent about £2 million providing specialist training and equipment to overseas law enforcement agencies in countries close to the source of production with the aim of improving their ability to reduce the supply of drugs to the United Kingdom. Additionally we assist in improving international co-operation through the United Kingdom's membership of Europol, the European Union and G8.

  Effectiveness of Police Enforcement

  The Home Office is not responsible for Customs and Excise. The total amount spent by police forces in countering the supply of drugs cannot be disaggregated from other expenditure.

  Domestic Control

  There are tight legislative controls on the possession and supply of controlled drugs and the maximum available penalties reflect the seriousness of the offences. Supplying Class A drugs carries a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment and an unlimited fine and a third conviction for the supply of a Class A drug carries a minimum period of seven years. imprisonment. For the Home Office, maintaining these controls will involve police (see earlier), probation and prison costs (see later). Its costs last year were some £400,000.

  Prevention and support of local initiatives

  Prior to the 1999 establishment of the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) to provide; support for local Drug Action Teams, the Drugs Prevention Initiative (DPI) was the vehicle by which the Home Office provided an
  334W
  evidence base for disseminating good practice. The spend during the period 1997 to 2000, covering both organisations, was:

  £

  Drug Action Team development funding1

  Arrest referral2

  DPI/DPAS grants

  Research and evaluation

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,855,340

  382,000

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1,725,647

  364,223

  1999–2000

  5,035,000

  332,540

  246,979

  152,098

  2000–01

  5,817,000

  8,707,000

  669,532

  164,304

  1Funds were previously disbursed by the Department of Health (DH). Earlier information unavailable. Includes 2000–01 additional spend on DH behalf for recruitment of drug workers.

  2 £20 million has been allocated for the setting schemes over the three years up to 2001–02.

  Treatment and Rehabilitation

  All spending by probation areas on drug treatment and rehabilitation came out of the general probation grant allocations. There was no hypothecated drug funding.

  The figures available for actual drug spending relate to expenditure on drug partnerships.

  Drugs

  Drugs/alcohol1

  Drug treatment and testing orders (DTTO)

  1997–98

  1,852,378

  558,378

  —

  1998–99

  1,903,746

  851,899

  798,000

  1999–2000

  n/a

  n/a

  1,000,000

  2000–01

  n/a

  n/a

  20,000,000

  1Where spending on drugs could not be disaggregated from spending on alcohol

  The Prison Service allocation on tackling drug misuse was:

  Supply reduction and testing1

  Treatment and prevention

  1997–98

  2,230,000

  6,780,000

  1998–99

  2,230,000

  6,780,000

  1999–2000

  12,195,000

  19,390,000

  2000–01

  12,009,000

  23,292,000

  1Includes Headquarters costs

  Notes:

  1. First pilots established in 1998–99

  2. Further spend in 1999–2000 to support pilots

  3. A further £20 million in 2000–01

  4. £2 million was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department

  5. The rest went to probation areas for national roll out of DTTOs from October 2000.

  West Mercia Constabulary (Shrewsbury Division)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the capital improvement projects in the Shrewsbury Division of West Mercia Constabulary since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [160512]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: Most capital projects are entirely a matter for police authorities and forces. The Chief Constable of West Mercia

  335W
  Constabulary informs me that capital improvements in the Shrewsbury Division have been as follows:

  Year

  Project

  1997

  Alteration of Police House to create the new Pontesbury Police Station

  1999

  New Build—Bishop's Castle Police Station

  1999

  Alteration of Police House to create the new Craven Arms Police Station

  2000 to date

  Creation of an open plan Intelligence Cell from cellular offices, Shrewsbury Divisional Head Quarters

  2000 to date

  New Build—Ludlow Police Station

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the period between the commencement of the home detention curfew scheme and 30 April inclusive(a) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked with reasons, (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including offences committed, by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [159869]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I have written to the right hon. Member and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Imprisonment Rates
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the imprisonment rate was as a percentage of crimes committed for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European countries in the latest year for which information is available. [160971]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest available information on the attrition rate in England and Wales was published in December 1999 in "Digest 4: Information on the criminal justice system in England & Wales". This indicates that, for the offences of criminal damage, theft of a motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle (including 336W
  attempts), bicycle theft, domestic burglary, wounding, robbery/theft from the person, 0.3 per cent. of the offences committed in 1997 resulted in a custodial sentence.

  Similar information is not available for other European countries. However, information based on a survey conducted by the Council of Europe on the percentage of persons convicted who received custodial sentences for certain offences was published in February last year in the Statistical Bulletin 04/00, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 1998".

  Copies of both these documents are available in the Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of senior civil servants in his Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week; and if he will make a statement. [160884]

  Mr. Straw
  Less than 4 per cent. of senior civil servants in my Department have signed such waivers. The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Home Office are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations.

  Severe Personality Disorders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds his Department has allocated to the pilot assessment projects for those with dangerous and severe personality disorder for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [160637]

  Mr. Boateng
  Money allocated to fund dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) pilot projects—for assessment and treatment—for those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered is as follows:

  Year

  Spent(£)

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  554,353

  Following the Spending Review 2000, substantial capital and current funds have been allocated in the both the Home Office and the Department of Health for the development of further pilot projects. For 2001–02 the Home Office allocation is:

  Current—£11 million

  Capital—£9 million

  Police (Injuries)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have received firearms injuries while on duty in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [160805]
  337W
  (2) how many police officers have received firearms injuries from a police firearm (a) while on duty and (b) in training in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [160806]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate collates statistics of notifiable offences recorded by the police, in which police officers on duty are injured by a firearm. The table records numbers of incidents in England and Wales since 1989. Data for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  No distinction is made regarding how the firearm was used in causing the injury, who caused the injury, or whether it was incurred on duty or in training.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which a police officer on duty was injured by a firearm

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury1

  Slight injury

  Total

  1989

  1

  2

  8

  11

  1990

  1

  2

  2

  5

  1991

  —

  5

  2

  7

  1992

  21

  3

  6

  10

  1993

  1

  3

  6

  10

  1994

  —

  12

  9

  21

  1995

  1

  9

  5

  15

  1996

  —

  4

  5

  9

  1997

  —

  2

  4

  6

  1997–98

  —

  3

  3

  6

  1998–99

  —

  —

  11

  11

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  10

  10

  1A serious injury is one which necessitated detention in hospital or involved fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds.

  2 Special constable.

  Police firearms officers undertake rigorous training and their use of firearms is governed by ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) guidelines.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average crime clear-up rate was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many recorded crimes were not cleared up in each year; and if he will make a statement. [160796]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The table shows the clear-up rates for recorded crime in England and Wales since 1990, together with the total number of recorded crimes that were not cleared up in this period.

  Recorded crime clear-up (or detection) rate and notifiable offences not cleared up

  Percentage clear-up rate

  Number of offences not cleared up

  1990

  32

  2,984,209

  1991

  29

  3,595,853

  1992

  26

  3,992,621

  1993

  25

  3,988,955

  1994

  26

  3,706,081

  1995

  26

  3,609,069

  338W

  Recorded crime clear-up (or detection) rate and notifiable offences not cleared up

  Percentage clear-up rate

  Number of offences not cleared up

  1996

  26

  3,580,686

  1997

  28

  3,202,396

  1998–99

  29

  3,611,970

  1999–2000

  25

  3,964,272

  Notes:

  1. Offences of Criminal damage £20 and under have been excluded up to 1997; all criminal damage is included thereafter.

  2. New guidance was issued in April 1999 that tightened up the conditions under which a crime can be detected. One of its principal features was the removal of post-sentence visits as a method of detection

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letters to him dated 11 April and 2 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. S. Anjum. [160967]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 May.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letter to him dated 26 March from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to the Dahem family. [160969]

  Mr. Straw
  I will write to my right hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letter to him dated 10 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mujibur Rahman. [160966]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 9 May.

  Crime Reduction Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the initiatives(a) under way and (b) planned as part of his Crime Reduction Programme, indicating the objectives, expected duration and cost to public funds of each initiative. [159017]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The Crime Reduction Programme (CRP) is the biggest single investment in an evidence-based approach to crime reduction which has ever taken place in any country. Knowledge gained will contribute to reversing the long-term growth rate in crime and ensuring we are achieving the greatest impact for the money spent. Projects which are successful will form the basis of future mainstream programmes; those which are not will be dropped.

  All of the initiatives in the table are under way; no new initiatives are planned as part of the Crime Reduction Programme. CRP projects are of differing duration, but all CRP initiatives are due to finish by 31 March 2002 although some will, exceptionally and with prior approval, be completed in 2002–03.
  339W

  Crime Reduction Programme

  £

  Initiative

  Objective

  Actual expenditure for 1999–2000

  Provisional final expenditure for 2000–01

  Forecast expenditure for 2001–02

  Reducing Burglary

  To reduce burglary nationally by targeting areas with worst domestic burglary Problems

  2.1

  9.2

  18.5

  Locks for the over-60s

  To improve security for low-income pensioners in high crime areas

  0

  0.9

  3.0

  Summer Schemes

  To engage in constructive activities 13 to 17-years-olds in high crime neighbourhoods

  0

  1.9

  1.7

  Prostitution—What Works

  To find out what works in reducing crime/disorder associated with prostitution

  0

  0.04

  1.0

  Targeted Policing

  To help develop problem oriented approach to local crime/disorder problems

  0.5

  9.4

  18.6

  'On Track'

  Long-term initiative aimed at children at risk of getting involved in crime

  0.2

  5.0

  10

  Vehicle Crime Publicity

  To increase motorists' awareness of vehicle security issues

  0

  8.0

  20

  Treatment of Offenders

  To develop effective practice on what reduces re-offending

  2.3

  7.8

  8.2

  Drug Arrest Referrals

  Development of arrest referral schemes to impact upon drug-related offending

  0.3

  8.8

  10.5

  Schools Intervention

  To integrate schools' management of pupils' behaviour and reduction in truancies and exclusions

  0.2

  6.1

  5.4

  Violence Against Women

  To develop and implement local strategies for reducing domestic violence and rape/sexual assault by known perpetrators

  0.09

  2.0

  7.1

  Vehicle Crime

  To help prevent stolen vehicles being given new indentity and reduce number of cars stolen for resale

  0

  0.5

  2.6

  Youth Inclusion

  Multiple intervention Package for most at risk 13 to 16-year-olds in deprived neighbourhoods

  0

  2.75

  2.75

  Sentencing Practices

  To maximise impact of sentences on crime reduction

  0.3

  0.9

  3.2

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  To pump-prime new and existing warden schemes

  0

  0.9

  3.0

  Design Against Crime

  To increase crime resistance of new products, designs and systems

  0.6

  0.5

  1.1

  Arson control Forum

  To contribute to 30 per cent reduction in number of deliberate fires by 31 March 2009

  0

  0.1

  20

  Offender Index

  To provide a criminal career database on the offender population

  0.075

  0.2

  0

  Suzy Lamplugh Trust

  To support the establishment of a Centre for Personal Safety

  0

  0.2

  0.3

  CCTV Initiative

  Capital funding of CCTV projects

  0

  23.4

  101.3

  Rape Crisis Federation

  To support and develop rape crisis groups

  0

  0

  0.4

  Toolkits

  Production of toolkits to assist partnerships in crime reduction work

  0

  0.1

  0.4

  Total

  6.7

  88.7

  189.05

  1Responsibility for funding `On Track' transferred to DfEE's Children's Fund with effect from 1 April 2001

  2 No longer funded by Crime Reduction Programme

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Lord Birt met representatives of(a) Victim Support and (b) other victims' organisations in his capacity as the Government's adviser on crime. [158256]
  340W
  Mr. Straw
  I understand that Lord Birt met representatives of Victim Support on 30 January 2001 and that he met representatives of Crime Concern on 30 January and the National Association of Care and Resettlement of Offenders on 14 February 2001.
  341W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criminal justice organisations Lord Birt has met in his capacity as the Government's adviser on crime; and when. [158257]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand that over the months since his appointment in July 2000 Lord Birt has met the following organisations involved in criminal justice and crime reduction:

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  HM Customs and Excise

  Department for Education and Employment

  Youth Justice Board

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator

  Social Exclusion Unit

  Northumbria Police

  Sunderland Youth Offending Team

  Nottingham County Council; Nottingham Sure Start; Youth Offending Team

  342W

  Aylesbury Youth Offender Institution

  HM Prison Brixton

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  National Crime Squad

  Parole Board for England and Wales

  National Probation Service

  Victim Support

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  Crime Concern.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Lord Birt met representatives of(a) ACPO, (b) the Police Superintendents' Association and (c) the Police Federation in his capacity as the Government's adviser on crime. [158258]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand that Lord Birt met the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 19 December 2000.
  343W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peter Bleach
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received to the letter which he sent to the Indian Government about the imprisonment of Peter Bleach; and if he will make a statement. [158444]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet received a reply to his letter of 4 December 2000 to the Indian Government asking for Peter Bleach to be released on the grounds of fair and equal treatment with his co-convicted who have already been released. He sent a reminder on 29 January. Our High Commissioner in New Delhi has followed up the Foreign Secretary's request with key players in the Indian Government. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, called in the Indian High Commissioner on 7 March to remind him of the Foreign Secretary's request. I also raised the case with the Indian High Commissioner on 22 March.

  EU Secret Documents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards classification of EU documents graded as Top Secret. [158753]

  Mr. Vaz
  EU security regulations provide for classification of EU documents graded as Top Secret and set out the rationale for doing so. It is right that where institutions of the European Union hold information that is Top Secret, they should handle that information with appropriate care as provided for in the relevant security regulations.

  Council of Europe Conventions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the conventions of the Council of Europe which the UK has yet to ratify. [158747]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are 16 conventions of the Council of
  Europe which the UK has not yet ratified. They are:

  1. Protocol no.4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those included in the Convention and in Protocol no.1

  Waiting times in weeks for settlement applications

  2000

  2001

  Post/Queue

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Bombay

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  6

  5

  4

  4

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Q3

  6

  5

  4

  4

  4

  6

  6

  6

  8

  6

  Q4

  6

  5

  4

  4

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  New Delhi

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  12

  12

  13

  16

  15

  10

  10

  15

  15

  12

  Q3

  12

  12

  13

  16

  15

  10

  10

  15

  15

  12

  Q4

  12

  12

  13

  16

  15

  10

  10

  15

  15

  12

  344W
  2. Convention relating to stops on bearer securities in international circulation

  3. Convention on the establishment of a scheme of registration of wills

  4. European Convention on the Control of the acquisition and possession of Firearms by individuals

  5. European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter

  6. Protocol amending the European Social Charter

  7. European Social Charter (revised)

  8. Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in public life at local level

  9. European Convention relating to questions on copyright law and neighbouring rights in the framework of Transfrontier Broadcasting by satellite

  10. Agreement on illicit traffic by sea, implementing article 17 of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

  11. Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region

  12. Criminal law convention on corruption

  13. European agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights

  14. Sixth protocol to the general agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe

  15. Civil law convention on corruption

  16. European Convention on the promotion of a Transitional long-term voluntary service for young people

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 529W. on entry clearance, what proportion of the cases in which he intervened pertain to families of individuals known to him personally; and if he will make a statement. [158811]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 April 2001,Official Report, column 420W.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long on average a person who applied for entry clearance for settlement in(a) June 2000, (b) July 2000, (c) August 2000, (d) September 2000, (e) October 2000, (f) November 2000, (g) December 2000, (h) January 2001, (i) February 2001 and (j) March 2001 will have to wait for an interview in each queue at each post in the Indian sub-continent. [160093]

  Mr. Vaz
  The statistics are as follows:
  345W

  Waiting times in weeks for settlement applications

  2000

  2001

  Post/Queue

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Dhaka

  Q1

  20

  22

  22

  18

  16

  14

  14

  12

  14

  16

  Q2

  28

  30

  28

  28

  26

  24

  21

  20

  22

  24

  Q3

  20

  22

  22

  18

  16

  14

  14

  12

  12

  16

  Q4

  44

  44

  42

  44

  40

  36

  35

  35

  34

  38

  Islamabad

  Q1

  5

  5

  4

  5

  3.5

  3

  4

  0

  7

  5

  Q2

  20.5

  19

  19

  18.5

  18

  18

  17

  0

  15

  13

  Q3

  29

  27

  25.5

  24

  22

  22

  20

  0

  18

  16

  Q4

  36

  36

  33

  31

  31

  29

  28

  0

  25

  23

  Calcutta1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colombo1

  10

  8

  8

  7

  10

  0

  0

  5

  5

  4

  Karachi1

  3

  7

  9

  8

  10

  12

  11

  12

  8

  5

  Madras1

  8

  6

  7

  5

  3

  7

  7

  6

  7

  7

  1Calcutta, Colombo, Karachi and Madras operate as a single settlement queue

  Notes:

  Q1—Right of abode cases and Dependant Relatives over 65

  Q2—Spouses and Children under 18

  Q3—Fiance(e)s and other First Time Applicants

  Q4—Re-applicants

  EU Single Sky Initiative
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Spain regarding the European Union's single sky proposals; and if he will make a statement. [159580]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the matter with his Spanish counterpart on 9 April. The Government fully support the EU single sky initiative, which should benefit UK industry and consumers. The Stockholm European Council on 23–24 March called for progress on this issue before the next European Council in Gothenburg on 15–16 June.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he has made in accordance with his commitments under Article 12, paragraph 3 of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages to reflect the(a) Irish, (b) Welsh and (c) Scots Gaelic languages and culture; and what the estimated cost of such provision is in each of the next four years. [159498]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no fixed budget for honouring this commitment over the next four years, but the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Devolved Administrations, who are responsible for implementing these measures, have a number of programmes in hand.

  The Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive have allocated a total of £310,000 in 2001–02 for the Columba Initiative in co-operation with the
  346W
  Republic of Ireland to promote links between speakers of Irish and Scots Gaelic in both Scotland and the whole island of Ireland.

  The Northern Ireland Administration is committed to a number of projects, including a £2.53 million subsidy for the Irish Language Agency under the Good Friday Agreement, and a touring exhibition of all the languages used in Northern Ireland, both of which will benefit the Republic of Ireland. The NIA has also, in conjunction with the British Council and the Arts Council in the Republic of Ireland, funded a number of events to promote Irish culture in countries such as France, Germany and the USA, and will continue to offer support where appropriate to similar future initiatives.

  The National Assembly for Wales announced in April 2000, funding worth £130,000 over three years, in support of a project to support the Welsh Language and Culture in the Chubut province of Argentina. The project is managed for the Assembly by the British Council in collaboration with the Wales-Argentina Society and Cardiff University's Welsh Language Teaching Centre for Adults:

  Your Britain, Your Europe Roadshow
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 549W, on the Your Britain, Your Europe Roadshow, at what level and on what date the decision was made to (a) postpone and (b) cancel the initiative. [159555]
  347W
  Mr. Vaz
  In early January I decided that this visit would have to be postponed. It was subsequently rescheduled for 20 March. Following consultations with officials in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Office, by late February it was clear that this date would not be convenient for their Ministers. On 28 February I decided to cancel the visit. I hope it will be reinstated in the near future.

  Turkey
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish authorities regarding the hunger strikers in Turkish prisons. [159924]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are very concerned about the continuing hunger strikes in some Turkish prisons. Our Ambassador in Ankara raised our concern about the deaths of hunger strikers with the Turkish Government on 12 April. Our Embassy in Ankara again raised our concerns at the growing number of deaths with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 26 April.

  Entertainment Budgets
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the entertainment budget for his Department was in each year from 1997 to date. [160101]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total worldwide entertainment expenditure amounted to £10.3 million in 1997–98, £9.3 million in 1998–99 and £11.2 million in 1999–2000. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available. Expenditure on entertainment covers a wide range of activities including promotional and trade events, receptions in honour of high-level visitors, and events to establish and cultivate contacts; all were undertaken in pursuit of FCO objectives, both at home and in our 224 Posts overseas.

  In addition, the FCO-administered Government Hospitality Fund, drawn upon by all Government Departments when entertaining overseas visitors, spent £1.2 million in 1997–98, £1.8 million in 1998–99, and £1.3 million in 1999–2000.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 132W, on Turkmenistan, if he has received a formal response from the Turkmen authorities concerning the continuing incarceration of Shageldy Atakov; what representations he is making to the Turkmen authorities on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [160144]

  Mr. Vaz
  The British Government, along with their EU Partners, have not yet received a formal response from the Turkmen Foreign Minister concerning the detention of Mr. Atakov. EU Embassies in Ashgabat have requested a further meeting with the Foreign Minister to remind him of our concern. We also raised Mr. Atakov's situation with the Deputy Foreign Minister in April.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement his 348W
  Department has had in attempts to reach a settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. [159852]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding, answer 2 May 2001]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not played a direct role in the international mediation that has taken place in an effort to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group, America, Russia and France are leading the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The UK has constantly encouraged both sides to find a mutually acceptable solution.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in complying with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the franchise for Gibraltarians for elections to the European Parliament; when the Court decision was made; and if he will make a statement. [160146]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Matthews judgment, given on 18 February 1999. requires the UK to extend the European Parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar. The UK unequivocally accepts this obligation.

  The UK has proposed an amendment to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to extend the franchise to Gibraltar. This amendment remains on the agenda of the relevant Council working group. But HMG are considering other options in order to extend the franchise before the 2004 European Parliament elections.

  Family Visit Visas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa refusals in relation to which(a) an appeal was received, (b) a refusal was overturned by an entry clearance manager after receipt of an appeal and (c) an appeal was despatched in April; [160463]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa applications (a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused in April. [160461]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Statistical information is received monthly only from the 100 largest posts. The remaining 64 posts submit information on an annual basis. To answer this question for all 164 posts we would have to ask the annual reporting posts to provide the information requested. This could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  The monthly reporting posts are not required to submit statistical information on any given month until the middle of the following month. So information for April is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when it becomes available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many family visit visa applications were(a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused by (i) the largest 100 entry clearance posts and (ii) all entry clearance posts in the first quarter of 2001. [160462]
  349W
  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: (i) Our latest information from the 100 largest entry clearance posts which submit monthly statistical data is shown in the table.

  Family visit visa applications 2001—top 100 posts

  Applications received

  Applications determined

  January

  February

  March

  January

  February

  March

  1. Abidjan

  19

  29

  16

  20

  22

  19

  2. Abu Dhabi

  24

  34

  34

  23

  35

  34

  3. Abuja

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  4. Accra

  753

  1,694

  1,857

  685

  782

  1,962

  5. Addis Ababa

  31

  12

  15

  39

  11

  15

  6. Almaly

  36

  13

  20

  37

  13

  20

  7. Amman

  426

  85

  58

  0

  85

  58

  8. Amsterdam

  38

  34

  34

  38

  34

  34

  9. Ankara

  29

  38

  19

  29

  38

  19

  10. Bahrain

  16

  10

  2

  16

  10

  2

  11. Baku

  19

  9

  8

  19

  9

  8

  12. Bandar Seri Begawan

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  13. Bangkok

  80

  173

  361

  73

  154

  277

  14. Banjul

  38

  34

  49

  40

  31

  32

  15. Beirut

  92

  62

  82

  89

  62

  78

  16. Belgrade

  258

  391

  320

  4

  352

  290

  17. Bogota

  33

  33

  47

  33

  33

  47

  18. Bombay

  619

  1,070

  1,787

  619

  1,070

  1,791

  19. Bratislava

  50

  122

  184

  50

  118

  171

  20. Brussels

  14

  10

  35

  4

  7

  22

  21. Bucharest

  58

  85

  109

  59

  90

  110

  22. Budapest

  6

  7

  5

  6

  7

  5

  23. Cairo

  137

  145

  146

  129

  142

  143

  24. Calcutta

  94

  118

  222

  97

  120

  225

  25. Canberra

  7

  15

  15

  7

  16

  15

  26. Casablanca

  117

  119

  115

  110

  116

  115

  27. Chicago

  141

  176

  200

  119

  162

  190

  28. Colombo

  70

  74

  161

  70

  74

  49

  29. Copenhagen

  44

  36

  42

  44

  36

  39

  30. Damascus

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  15

  31. Dar Es Salaam

  107

  104

  191

  107

  104

  191

  32. Dhaka

  451

  490

  502

  348

  415

  437

  33. Doha

  49

  31

  24

  49

  31

  24

  34. Dubai

  71

  79

  75

  75

  81

  51

  35. Dublin

  36

  21

  20

  36

  18

  18

  36. Dusseldorf

  106

  272

  383

  100

  246

  332

  37. Ekaterinburg

  11

  16

  24

  11

  16

  24

  38. Geneva

  25

  74

  63

  21

  67

  61

  39. Georgetown

  33

  74

  63

  33

  25

  61

  40. Guangzhou

  121

  143

  1—

  90

  91

  1—

  41. Hanoi

  4

  3

  5

  4

  3

  4

  42. Harare

  0

  1

  1—

  0

  1

  1—

  43. Havana

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  44. Hong Kong

  32

  34

  40

  32

  37

  5

  45. Islamabad

  2,326

  2,225

  3,411

  1,512

  1,120

  2,864

  46. Istanbul

  430

  453

  227

  485

  522

  231

  47. Jakarta

  36

  58

  62

  37

  56

  61

  48. Jedda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  49. Jerusalem

  5

  9

  13

  5

  29

  13

  50. Kampala

  116

  102

  156

  120

  84

  142

  51. Karachi

  575

  420

  495

  460

  82

  495

  52. Kathmandu

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  53. Khartoum

  44

  15

  45

  15

  16

  49

  54. Kiev

  83

  1—

  1—

  20

  1—

  1—

  55. Kingston

  52

  68

  130

  46

  70

  132

  56. Kuala Lumpur

  14

  12

  20

  13

  13

  20

  57. Kuwait

  200

  43

  28

  200

  43

  28

  58. Lagos

  1,147

  1,193

  1,718

  901

  1,293

  1,509

  59. Lima

  12

  27

  29

  12

  30

  29

  60. Los Angeles

  0

  216

  320

  0

  216

  320

  61. Luanda

  8

  2

  14

  8

  2

  3

  62. Lusaka

  0

  55

  65

  0

  19

  65

  63. Madras

  217

  229

  490

  233

  226

  544

  64. Madrid

  26

  37

  26

  26

  37

  26

  65. Manila

  0

  129

  1—

  0

  129

  1—

  66. Minsk

  0

  14

  20

  0

  14

  18

  350W
  (ii) the remaining 64 posts submit information on an annual basis. To answer this question for all 164 posts we would have to ask the annual reporting posts to provide the information requested. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.
  351W

  Family visit visa applications 2001—top 100 posts

  Applications received

  Applications determined

  January

  February

  March

  January

  February

  March

  67. Moscow

  237

  214

  286

  228

  191

  268

  68. Muscat

  75

  39

  65

  72

  39

  65

  69. Nairobi

  156

  164

  203

  156

  164

  203

  70. New Delhi

  913

  1,153

  1,335

  907

  1,129

  1,244

  71. New York

  533

  558

  650

  511

  549

  635

  72. Nicosia

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  73. Oslo

  30

  44

  92

  27

  42

  89

  74. Ottawa

  475

  278

  364

  442

  185

  255

  75. Paris

  286

  253

  296

  0

  248

  328

  76. Peking

  109

  63

  288

  94

  51

  288

  77. Port Louis

  80

  136

  275

  80

  136

  275

  78. Port of Spain

  5

  0

  20

  5

  0

  20

  79. Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80. Pretoria

  27

  25

  9

  20

  13

  11

  81. Quito

  24

  14

  17

  24

  14

  16

  82. Riga

  11

  6

  1—

  11

  12

  1—

  83. Riyadh

  8

  15

  1—

  12

  20

  1—

  84. Rome

  63

  90

  99

  61

  80

  92

  85. Sana'a

  20

  13

  12

  20

  10

  11

  86. Sarajevo

  61

  119

  159

  61

  119

  159

  87. Shanghai

  10

  30

  116

  10

  30

  116

  88. Singapore

  21

  26

  39

  24

  25

  37

  89. Sofia

  89

  118

  120

  74

  117

  114

  90. St. Petersburg

  0

  0

  65

  0

  0

  65

  91. Sto Domingo

  6

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  92. Stockholm

  89

  103

  105

  129

  123

  116

  93. Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  94. Tashkent

  13

  5

  13

  13

  5

  13

  95. Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96. Tehran

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  97. Tirana

  21

  21

  15

  15

  23

  15

  98. Tokyo

  5

  5

  11

  5

  4

  12

  99. Tunis

  97

  92

  105

  87

  70

  105

  100. Valletta

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  13,053

  14,862

  19,376

  10,555

  12,164

  18,094

  1Information not yet received from posts

  Applications issued

  Applications refused

  January

  February

  March

  January

  February

  March

  1. Abidjan

  19

  21

  18

  1

  1

  1

  2. Abu Dhabi

  17

  29

  32

  6

  6

  2

  3. Abuja

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  4. Accra

  277

  757

  1,060

  408

  25

  902

  5. Addis Ababa

  14

  6

  10

  25

  5

  5

  6. Almaly

  37

  13

  20

  0

  0

  0

  7. Amman

  0

  84

  57

  0

  1

  1

  8. Amsterdam

  32

  30

  32

  6

  4

  2

  9. Ankara

  28

  38

  17

  1

  0

  2

  10. Bahrain

  16

  10

  0

  0

  0

  2

  11. Baku

  18

  9

  7

  1

  0

  1

  12. Bandar Seri Begawan

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  13. Bangkok

  45

  131

  253

  28

  23

  24

  14. Banjul

  32

  20

  20

  8

  11

  12

  15. Beirut

  87

  61

  77

  2

  1

  1

  16. Belgrade

  0

  347

  289

  4

  5

  1

  17. Bogota

  25

  29

  46

  8

  4

  1

  18. Bombay

  454

  874

  1,419

  165

  196

  372

  19. Bratislava

  47

  115

  171

  3

  3

  0

  20. Brussels

  3

  5

  22

  1

  2

  0

  21. Bucharest

  48

  82

  102

  11

  8

  8

  22. Budapest

  5

  7

  4

  1

  0

  1

  23. Cairo

  113

  124

  132

  16

  18

  11

  24. Calcutta

  95

  116

  224

  2

  4

  1

  25. Canberra

  4

  13

  15

  3

  3

  0

  26. Casablanca

  105

  114

  106

  5

  2

  9

  27. Chicago

  119

  162

  190

  0

  0

  0

  28. Colombo

  32

  48

  0

  38

  26

  49

  29. Copenhagen

  44

  36

  39

  0

  0

  0

  30. Damascus

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  4

  31. Dar Es Salaam

  93

  83

  172

  14

  21

  19

  352W 353W

  Applications issued

  Applications refused

  January

  February

  March

  January

  February

  March

  32. Dhaka

  203

  227

  234

  145

  188

  203

  33. Doha

  46

  31

  21

  3

  0

  3

  34. Dubai

  47

  47

  33

  28

  34

  18

  35. Dublin

  34

  16

  17

  2

  2

  1

  36. Dusseldorf

  94

  241

  332

  6

  5

  0

  37. Ekaterinburg

  11

  16

  24

  0

  0

  0

  38. Geneva

  20

  66

  57

  1

  1

  4

  39. Georgetown

  28

  20

  57

  5

  5

  4

  40. Guangzhou

  84

  85

  1—

  6

  6

  1—

  41. Hanoi

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  42. Harare

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  1

  1—

  43. Havana

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  44. Hong Kong

  27

  32

  3

  5

  5

  2

  45. Islamabad

  1,112

  1,059

  1,664

  400

  61

  1,200

  46. Istanbul

  424

  451

  207

  61

  71

  24

  47. Jakarta

  33

  50

  49

  4

  6

  12

  48. Jedda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  49. Jerusalem

  5

  9

  13

  0

  20

  0

  50. Kampala

  100

  59

  114

  20

  25

  28

  51. Karachi

  397

  19

  345

  63

  63

  150

  52. Kathmandu

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  53. Khartoum

  5

  6

  45

  10

  10

  4

  54. Kiev

  1—

  1—

  1—

  20

  1—

  1—

  55. Kingston

  35

  59

  118

  11

  11

  14

  56. Kuala Lumpur

  10

  11

  12

  3

  2

  8

  57. Kuwait

  196

  39

  23

  4

  4

  5

  58. Lagos

  688

  1,143

  1,316

  213

  150

  193

  59. Lima

  8

  26

  28

  4

  4

  1

  60. Los Angeles

  0

  216

  318

  0

  0

  2

  61. Luanda

  8

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  62. Lusaka

  0

  7

  58

  0

  12

  7

  63. Madras

  216

  211

  511

  17

  15

  33

  64. Madrid

  26

  37

  26

  0

  0

  0

  65. Manila

  0

  59

  1—

  0

  70

  1—

  66. Minsk

  0

  13

  18

  0

  1

  0

  67. Moscow

  223

  190

  261

  5

  1

  7

  68. Muscat

  68

  36

  63

  4

  3

  2

  69. Nairobi

  132

  141

  167

  24

  23

  36

  70. New Delhi

  573

  682

  777

  334

  447

  467

  71. New York

  500

  547

  633

  11

  2

  2

  72. Nicosia

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  73. Oslo

  27

  41

  89

  0

  1

  0

  74. Ottawa

  442

  184

  252

  0

  1

  3

  75. Paris

  0

  246

  325

  0

  2

  3

  76. Peking

  88

  40

  238

  6

  11

  50

  77. Port Louis

  73

  126

  263

  7

  10

  12

  78. Port of Spain

  5

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  79. Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80. Pretoria

  16

  11

  7

  4

  2

  4

  81. Quito

  20

  14

  16

  4

  0

  0

  82. Riga

  11

  6

  1—

  0

  6

  1—

  83. Riyadh

  9

  9

  1—

  3

  11

  1—

  84. Rome

  60

  77

  91

  1

  3

  1

  85. Sana'a

  8

  1

  6

  12

  9

  5

  86. Sarajevo

  61

  117

  158

  0

  2

  1

  87. Shanghai

  8

  23

  107

  2

  7

  9

  88. Singapore

  18

  25

  37

  6

  0

  0

  89. Sofia

  71

  113

  114

  3

  4

  0

  90. St. Petersburg

  0

  0

  61

  0

  0

  4

  91. Sto Domingo

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  92. Stockholm

  128

  121

  116

  1

  2

  0

  93. Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  94. Tashkent

  12

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  95. Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96. Tehran

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  97. Tirana

  15

  20

  15

  0

  3

  0

  98. Tokyo

  4

  2

  11

  1

  2

  1

  99. Tunis

  60

  70

  84

  27

  21

  21

  100. Valletta

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  8,308

  10,467

  14,114

  2,247

  1,718

  3,980

  1Information not yet received from posts

  354W 355W

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on transport to and from(a) Pitcairn Island, (b) Norfolk Island, (c) St. Helena, (d) Ascension and (e) Tristan da Cunha. [160668]

  Mr. Battle
  Pitcairn has no air services nor a regular shipping service; however cargo vessels transiting between New Zealand and the Panama Canal are used to transport passengers and freight to and from Pitcairn. A passenger and cargo shipping service operates between the UK and St. Helena, calling at Ascension Island on a regular basis and Tristan da Cunha once a year. Tristan is also served by non-regular visits by research and fishing vessels. There is an American-run military airfield on Ascension Island, through which the RAF operates regular flights to and from the Falklands.

  Norfolk Island is Australian territory and we do not have the information sought.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the population is of(a) Pitcairn Island, (b) Norfolk Island, (c) St. Helena, (d) Ascension and (e) Tristan da Cunha; and how the population of these islands has changed since 1971. [160667]

  Mr. Battle
  The current population of Pitcairn is 44 (74 in 1976, the nearest date to 1971 for which there are reliable figures); St. Helena is 5,016 (5,147 in 1976); Ascension is 974 (1,311 in 1971); and Tristan da Cunha is 287 (312 in 1971). Norfolk Island is Australian territory and we do not hold these statistics.

HEALTH

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158066]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency, and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by South Staffordshire health authority and Staffordshire social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for South Staffordshire health authority are set out in the table.
  356W

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £million (cash)

  95.9

  £million (real terms)

  59.2

  Percentage (cash)

  35.89

  Percentage (real terms)

  20.40

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  South Staffordshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.2 million for accident and emergency modernisation (£0.82 million for Burton Hospitals NHS Trust and £0.38 million for Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust); £74,000, £163,000, £217,000 and £175,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer out-patients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; South Staffordshire health authority has also received £0.17 million investment for cancer equipment; £5.68 million to deliver improvement in in-patient waiting lists and out-patient waiting times; £0.77 million for Booked Admissions Projects; £0.41 million for Action on Cataracts Project; £2.20 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £0.79 million for winter pressures in 2000–01; £0.13 million for heart disease services 2000–01; £0.11 million for four Investing in Dentistry projects plus £50,000 Dental Care Development Fund award.

  Staffordshire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  120.2

  —

  —

  2001–02

  113.8

  —16.1

  —5.3

  Note:

  On 1 April 1997 Staffordshire local authority was reorganised and Stoke-on-Trent local authority came into existence (i.e. the figures in the table for 1996–97 relate to one local authority (Staffordshire local authority) serving a larger area and population than it now serves. That same area is now served by two local authorities (Staffordshire local authority and Stoke-on-Trent local authority), who each receive a standard spending assessment based on their smaller than previous populations). Therefore, figures for 2001–02 are not directly comparable with 1996–97.

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Staffordshire local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  4,779

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  3,437

  2,952

  4,006

  Prevention grant2

  —

  266

  401

  Carers grant3

  —

  269

  635

  887

  Children's grant3

  —

  675

  1,059

  2,681

  Mental Health Core grant

  675

  11,884

  1,319

  41,607

  Training Support Grant

  467

  504

  519

  4494

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grants

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  357W

  Departmental Policies (Sandwell)
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Health Authority, the effects of his Department's policies and actions on health provision in the Sandwell district health authority since 2 May 1997. [158331]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02", is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport

  Increases in allocations between 1997–97 and 2001–02 for Sandwell health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  65.1

  £ million (real terms)

  42.0

  Percentage (cash)

  39.19

  Percentage (real terms)

  23.33

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Sandwell health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £0.79 million for accident and emergency modernisation (Sandwell general hospital) plus £1.4 million invested to build a medical assessment unit; £80,000, £137,000, £153,000 and £158,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal and lung and cancer outpatient) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–00 and 2000–01 respectively; Sandwell Health Authority has also received £0.15 million for investment in cancer equipment. £3.58 million lo deliver improvements in in-patient waiting lists and out-patient waiting times; £0.38 million for booked admissions projects; £0.12 million for action on cataracts project; £1.25 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £0.38 million for winter pressures in 2000–01; £0.16 million for heart disease services 2000–01.

  In addition, Sandwell health action zone has received funding of £2.8 million (2000–01) and £2.7 million (2001–02) pending further funding announcements.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency and (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on (i) the South-West Devon health authority area and (ii) Plymouth unitary authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158033]
  358W
  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001/02–2003/04 and Main Estimates 2001–02" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies are not examined by constituency, and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by South and West Devon health authority and Plymouth social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for South and West Devon health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  117.3

  £ million (real terms)

  55.2

  Percentage (cash)

  30.12

  Percentage (real terms)

  16.52

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  South and West Devon health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.181 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £221,000, £265,000, £376,000 and £237,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer out-patients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; South and West Devon health authority has also received £980,000 for investment in cancer equipment; £2.065 million and £5.026 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £1.714 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £2.691 million to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01. £206,000 of this went to Plymouth social services; £1.813 million and £451,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £933,000 and £1.2 million for heart disease services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £95,000 invested into dentistry in 2000/01

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £101 million major hospital development that is being developed at Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Plymouth local authority came into existence on 1 April 1998. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £45.960 million.

  In addition to its SSA, Plymouth has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.
  359W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,729

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Grant2

  —

  1,256

  1,077

  1,471

  Prevention Grant2

  —

  99

  149

  Carers Grant3

  —

  99

  256

  357

  Children's Grant3

  —

  439

  696

  1,679

  MH Core Grant

  249

  433

  505

  4622

  Training Support Grant

  152

  235

  248

  4225

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99.

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant.

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000.

  4Indicative allocation.

  Meat Hygiene Inspections
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meat inspectors have been employed in inspecting(a) domestic abattoirs and (b) meat entering the UK in each of the last 10 years. [155290]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer sent 23 March 2001]: I am advised on food safety issues by the Food Standards Agency.

  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was established in 1995 when it took over meat inspection duties in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain from some 300 local authorities. The number of meat inspectors employed by the local authorities prior to 1 April 1995 is not known.

  In licensed abattoirs, Meat Hygiene Inspectors (MHIs) are present throughout processing and are responsible for the post mortem inspection of carcases and offal. The average number of MHIs employed by the MHS in licensed abattoirs in Great Britain in each of the last six years is shown in the table:

  Average number of MHIs

  1995–96

  960

  1996–97

  1,084

  1997–98

  1,173

  1998–99

  1,267

  1999–2000

  1,205

  2000–01

  1,174

  The increase in numbers is as a result of extra inspection work associated with the enforcement of BSE controls in licensed abattoirs.

  Information for Health Initiative
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress to date on the Information for Health initiative. [158572]

  Key Information Management and Technology targets

  National percentages by date

  Targets

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 March 2004

  31 March 2005

  IMT01—Desk top access to basic e-mail, browsing and directory services for all clinical and support staff in NHS trusts

  25

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT02—Provide remaining NHS staff with access to the above

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  IMT03—Submit Address Books and produce interim centrally managed NHS Address Book

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IMT04—Access to X500 conformant NHS Address Book directory for all connected staff

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  360W
  Ms Stuart
  Information for Health focuses on the best use of information and Information Technology in improving health and health care and in supporting the delivery of patient centred care and services. It is also a partnership approach involving key stakeholders such as front line clinicians, professional and representative bodies and IT suppliers. By being inclusive, considerable approval and support has been gained for the strategy across the National Health Service.

  The strategy was launched in September 1998 and it has had to flex to take into account major new initiatives flowing from the NHS plan and the e-Government agenda. These requirements are now fully reflected.

  There are clear and defined national targets to ensure the implementation of a national information and IT infrastructure. Record levels of funding have been committed for investment in IT over a three-year period. Local plans produced in all health communities are monitored and analysed to ensure that investments will meet the target deliverables. Each local community consists of a host health authority, its constituent NHS trusts, general practitioners, other primary care contractors, local authority social services and voluntary sector organisations. All local plans produced last year were published on the Department's internet site.

  The document "Building the Information Core: Implementing the NHS Plan" (www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexipu/strategy/update/) contains details of key targets to be achieved over the next four years, in order to meet the commitments contained in the NHS plan in relation to information systems. Other related targets around national service priorities will emerge in due course. Collectively they give the immediate Information Management and Technology priorities which Local Implementation Strategy (LIS) communities need to address to provide the NHS-wide core applications and services. These fundamental targets are listed in the table.

  The targets stretch to 2005 but progress on intermediate milestones has been strong. All GPs will be connected to NHSnet by March 2001 which will speed up and improve communications for test results, appointment booking and other patient centred information flows. NHS Direct services now cover the whole population of England.

  In addition to local implementation major development programmes are in place across the NHS. The National Booked Admission Programme pilots have now been running for 12 months and the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme (ERDIP) will provide essential lessons for national implementation of electronic patient and health records.

  Progress so far has been strong and we will maintain the effort to ensure that we fully realise the opportunities now unfolding to support a patient focused and modern NHS.
  361W

  Key Information Management and Technology targets

  National percentages by date

  Targets

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 March 2004

  31 March 2005

  IMT05—GP Practices to be computerised

  98

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT06—GP Practices with NHSnet Connection

  95

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT07—GP Practices with local area networks connected to NHSnet eg desktop access

  90

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT08—Online public information on availability of NHS services

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IMT09—Acute electronic patient record (EPR) level 3

  10

  35

  —

  75

  100

  IMTIO—Integrated primary and community EPR

  —

  —

  25

  50

  100

  IMT11—Emergency care electronic health record

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  IMT12—All bookings from GPs to out-patients or from out-patients to day-case or in-patients to be made electronically

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  IMTI3—Electronic transfer of all haematology and microbiology test
  results

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  IMT14—Electronic transfer of all radiology reports and discharge summaries between hospital and GPs

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  IMT15—All NHS pathology laboratories to be connected to NHSnet

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IMT16—All pathology results sent to GPs to contain NHS number

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT17—All electronic communications about patients to include their NHS number verified by NHS numbers strategic tracing service

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  IMT18—Online access to national codes for GPs and consultants

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IMT19—National NHS payroll and integrated human resources system

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  IMT20—All out-patient data set to he transmitted through NHSwide clearing service

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT21—LIS update

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1MT22—Integration of information strategies to

  support National Service Framework topics into LIS development within six months of the publication of the relevant strategy

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT23—Application of working in partnership toolkit

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  IMT24—Production of local education, training and development strategies

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  The final analysis of the quantitative targets and qualitative scoring of all LIS against 10 critical progress markers will be completed by mid June 2001.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services in Bolton. [159835]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the further £1,248 million capital allocation in the north-west for dialysis developments in 2001–02, a proposal for a new dialysis facility at the Royal Bolton Hospital has been received in the Department. A decision based on clear criteria will be made on the allocations in the near future.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported food poisoning cases there were in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [160271]

  Ms Stuart
  For the 52 weeks ending 27 April 2001 there were 88,110 notified cases of food poisoning in England and Wales. However, this figure includes only cases who consult a doctor or who are identified during the investigation of outbreaks.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists were registered(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [160366]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of General Dental Service principals on a health authority list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners in England is shown in the table for 31 March 1997 and 31 December 2000.
  362W

  General Dental Service: number of dentists at March 1997 and December 2000—England

  Date

  Principals

  Assistants

  Vocational dental practitioners

  Total

  March 1997

  15,301

  591

  495

  16,387

  December 2000

  16,269

  1,175

  614

  18,058

  Walsgrave NHS Trust
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps were taken by the Walsgrave NHS Trust management to investigate the surgical mistake that resulted in an anvil being left in a patient's rectum; and when the patient was informed of the mistake. [159611]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer sent 03 May 2001]: Our White Paper "A First Class Service" sets out a requirement for all organisations within the National Health Service to set up and implement a clinical governance framework, which identifies procedures to be followed when reporting and investigating clinical and untoward incidents. Such procedures should enable incidents to be investigated thoroughly in a culture of openness and reflection to ensure lessons are learnt and clinical practice improved.

  In this particular case, a clinical incident report was completed on 10 December 2000. The head of nursing for theatres was asked to undertake a thorough investigation to review and revise the necessary trust theatre procedures.
  363W
  As a result of the investigation, the importance of following theatre-checking procedures was reinforced to theatre managers and staff, and all theatre procedures were reviewed and amended accordingly to reflect lessons learned through this incident.

  The clinical director for surgery has ensured that junior doctors involved in colorectal surgery have a clear understanding of the operating mechanisms of the stapling gun. In addition, the Trust medical director also wrote to all consultant surgeons who carry out colorectal surgery reminding them of the need to be present throughout this kind of surgery.

  The consultant surgeon responsible for his care informed the patient on 18 January 2001 that the anvil had been left in his rectum following the operation of 4 December 2000. The patient's wife and another family member together with the specialist stoma nurse were present during this discussion.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost incurred by the Walsgrave NHS Trust since the suspension of Mr. Barros D'Sa on account of that suspension, including the suspended surgeon's salary, disciplinary hearings and related procedures and legal and court costs. [159610]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The total cost incurred by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire National Health Service Trust in regard to this matter was £171,605 at the end of March 2001. This cost includes elements relating to the salary of the suspended consultant, costs of locum cover, the setting up of an Inquiry Panel in accordance with HC(90)9, legal and court costs and mediation meeting costs.

  The National Clinical Assessment Authority will issue new guidance to NHS organisations later this year on handling suspensions and will consider any outstanding cases which are still awaiting resolution.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average peri-operative mortality rates for rectal cancer operations were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 for (i) England, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) Walsgrave NHS Trust excluding the St. Cross Hospital at Rugby. [159612]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 May 2001]: The table shows a count of discharges from hospital for patients where the main operation was on the rectum and the main diagnosis was 'malignant neoplasm of rectum'. This information is for National Health Service hospitals in England, West Midlands and the Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust in 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and includes both emergency and planned operations undertaken in this period.

  Live discharges

  Mortality

  1996–97

  Walsgrave NHS Trust

  49

  1—

  West Midlands

  732

  32

  England

  5,480

  228

  1997–98

  Walsgrave NHS Trust

  39

  1—

  West Midlands

  694

  32

  England

  5,381

  250

  364W

  Live discharges

  Mortality

  1998–99

  Walsgrave NHS Trust

  58

  1—

  West Midlands

  681

  32

  England

  5,649

  241

  1999–2000

  Walsgrave NHS Trust

  59

  1—

  West Midlands

  675

  23

  England

  5,773

  210

  1Owing to reasons of confidentiality, figures between one and five at trust level are not normally published.

  Notes:

  1. The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set, and is usually the most resource intensive performed during the episode.

  2. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and prov ides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures in this table have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  4. The Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust became the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust in 2000.

  5. The statistics provided are whole trust statistics and include St. Cross Hospital in Rugby for the time it has been a part of the trust.

  Source:

  HES Department of Health

  The average peri-operative rates during the four year period 1996 to 2000 is:

  Total discharges

  Mortality

  Rate percentage

  1996–2000

  Walsgrave NHS Trust

  216

  11

  5.1

  West Midlands

  2,901

  119

  4.1

  England

  23,212

  929

  4.0

  Note:

  The average number of deaths related to rectal cancer operations at the former Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust is less than three per year.

  Source:

  Department of Health

  Heart Attack Statistics
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the proportion of patients is who having suffered a heart attack (myocardial infarction) survive for five years; and what the equivalent figures are in(a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Sweden and (d) the USA. [160239]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 May 2001]: Data on the number of patients who survive for five years after having a heart attack are not routinely collected. Equivalent data for international comparisons are also not readily available. We have developed the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease, a 10-year strategy which deals with all aspects of coronary heart disease to provide a modern service with fair and fast access to high-quality services. One of the NSF's immediate priorities is to improve the use of effective medicines after heart attack (especially use of aspirin, beta-blockers and statins) so that 80 to 90 per cent. of people discharged from hospital following a heart attack will be prescribed these drugs.

  We recognise the importance of better information and that is why we have funded, through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Royal College of Physicians'

  365W
  Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP), which will collect information on all people hospitalised with a heart attack. It is expected that MINAP will eventually link to mortality data through the United Kingdom central cardiac audit database, and provide information on survival rates.

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on planned spending on child and adolescent mental health services by local health authorities for the financial year 2001–02. [160638]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authority spending plans to develop further their child and adolescent mental health strategies in 2001–02 have yet to be finalised. The planned health authority expenditure will reflect priorities as assessed jointly with local authorities.

  The Department has provided £20 million in 2001–02 to health authorities, which is in their baseline allocations. This funding, together with £15 million allocated to local authorities, is a significant investment for the development of services for this vulnerable group of children and young people.

  Heart Disease
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many echocardiography technicians were employed by the NHS for each of the last five years. [160603]

  Mr. Denham
  Data for the professions in health care science are not collected to this level.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of cardiac technicians accredited by the British Society of Echocardiography to carry out echocardiography, within the NHS. [160604]

  Mr. Denham
  We are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention for all staff, including cardiac technicians accredited by the British Society of Echocardiography to carry out echocardiography. We are investing in fair pay, encouraging the National Health Service to become a better employer, increasing training attracting former staff back to the NHS and encouraging flexible retirement.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the British Society of Echocardiography regarding concerns about the recognition of specialised echo technicians in the NHS. [160605]

  Mr. Denham
  We have not received any representations.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to increase the number of dedicated echocardiography technicians in the NHS. [160606]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is carrying out a review of the health care scientist work force. The need for an increase in the number of echocardiography technicians will be considered as part of the review.
  366W

  Disabled Persons (Consultation, Representation and Services) Act 1986
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent in the last financial year under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Consultation, Representation and Services) Act 1986. [160534]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Disabled Persons (Consultation, Representation and Services) Act 1986 forms part of the overall legislative framework for the provision of services to disabled people. As such, money spent under this Act is not separately identified, and forms part of the overall allocation for social services expenditure for disabled people of all ages.

  Details of local authority social services expenditure for the last financial year are not as yet available. Our latest available figures relate to the 1999–2000 financial year, details of which can be found in the Department of Health bulletin Personal Social Services Current Expenditure in England 1999–2000.

  Abattoirs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the price of inspection for small and medium-sized abattoirs. [160645]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 9 May 2001]: The Meat Inspection Charges Task Force was established by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in April 2000 to look at the issue of meat inspection charges and to consider alternative approaches to charging that would help to alleviate the burden of inspection charges on small and medium-sized abattoirs and cutting plants.

  In its report, the taskforce recommended that the Government should contribute to the costs of meat inspection in Great Britain. The taskforce recommended moving away from charging for meat inspections on an hourly basis and that, instead, all abattoirs and cutting plants should be charged the lower of either the standard (headage) charges laid down in EU Directive 96/43/EEC or their actual inspection costs. The taskforce estimated that adopting this recommendation would result in a cost to Government of up to £19 million in 2001–02 and each year thereafter.

  We accepted the taskforce recommendation and announced new, additional financial support in the context of the publication of the Rural White Paper on 28 November 2000 to secure the future of small and medium-sized abattoirs.

  Following consultation, a new charging system based on the taskforce recommendation was introduced by the FSA on 2 April 2001. Under the new system, the majority of meat plants will be paying substantially reduced meat inspection charges.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of senior civil servants in his Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours a week; and if he will make a statement. [160885]
  367W
  Ms Stuart
  There are currently 16 waivers signed by senior civil servants in the Department of Health. This figure includes eight waivers relating to staff in the regional offices and two waivers relating to staff of executive agencies of the Department.

  This represents just under 4 per cent. of the total number of senior civil servants employed by the Department as at 1 April 2001. Although this represents only a small proportion of senior civil servants in the Department, I am determined to improve the work/life balance of staff throughout my Department and there is currently a project under way to address all such long working hours.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will accept evidence from(a) patient organisations (b) charities, (c) pharmaceutical companies,(d) individual patients and (e) the medical profession in the forthcoming review of the operation of NICE; and if he will make a statement; [160745]

  (2) if the forthcoming results of the review of the operation of NICE will be (a) published and (b) conducted in public; and if he will make a statement; [160747]

  (3) if he will refer the forthcoming review of the operation of NICE to an independent reviewing body; and if he will make a statement; [160744]

  (4) if he will list the (a) start and (b) completion dates for the forthcoming review of the operation of NICE. [160746]

  Mr. Denham
  Decisions on the detail of this review have yet to be taken.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the letters to him dated 6 March and 5 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Reverend Canon Professor R. Preston. [160953]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply to my right hon. Friend's letter was sent on 8 May 2001.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the letters to him dated 14 February, 15 March and 19 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. S. McHugh. [160955]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply to my hon. Friend's letter was sent on 8 May 2001.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2001,Official Report, column 454W, on NHS vacancies, how many NHS vacancies there were in London for (a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) professions allied to medicine and (f) management and administration staff for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many posts in each category have been vacant for longer than three months; and if he will make a statement. [158774]
  368W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The information requested is contained in the "Department of Health's Vacancies Survey—1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Block Grant
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current value is of the block grant under the Barnett Formula to central Government funding for Scotland; what it was in 1997–98; and what the forecast is for 2003–04. [145199]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The expenditure of the former Scottish Office within Departmental Expenditure Limits in 1998–99 was £13,134 million. Expenditure in Scotland in 2001–02 (including expenditure by the Scotland Office) is planned to be £16,322 million and the corresponding figure for 2003–04 is £18,547 million. Following the introduction of resource budgeting, figures on a consistent basis for years prior to 1998–99 are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many job losses there were in Scotland, broken down by the lowest regional level for which data are available, for each of the last five years. [145647]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures on job losses are not held centrally. However figures on employment for Scotland by unitary authority (the lowest regional level for which data are available) are produced by the ONS as part of the Labour Force Survey.

  Total employment Scottish unitary authorities, 1996–2000

  Thousand

  Area Name

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Scotland

  2,260

  2,284

  2,309

  2,297

  2,331

  Aberdeen City

  115

  109

  111

  123

  110

  Aberdeenshire

  110

  115

  107

  115

  119

  Angus

  57

  59

  49

  52

  56

  Argyll and Bute

  42

  40

  44

  38

  37

  Clackmannanshire

  15

  16

  23

  19

  18

  Dumfries and Galloway

  68

  63

  63

  67

  65

  Dundee City

  60

  65

  65

  61

  57

  East Ayrshire

  54

  43

  46

  43

  48

  East Dunbartonshire

  51

  53

  53

  55

  54

  East Lothian

  39

  41

  44

  48

  42

  East Renfrewshire

  43

  44

  43

  43

  41

  Edinburgh, City of

  207

  206

  215

  223

  222

  Eilean Siar

  15

  16

  11

  11

  1—

  Falkirk

  67

  62

  70

  66

  73

  Fife

  150

  156

  162

  155

  160

  Glasgow City

  208

  215

  220

  207

  225

  Highland

  92

  101

  98

  93

  98

  Inverclyde

  39

  39

  34

  40

  37

  Midlothian

  38

  39

  43

  37

  42

  Moray

  45

  39

  40

  45

  42

  North Ayrshire

  58

  56

  59

  53

  63

  North Lanarkshire

  128

  131

  139

  141

  133

  Orkney Islands

  1—

  12

  10

  13

  15

  Perthshire and Kinross

  64

  67

  62

  57

  64

  Renfrewshire

  77

  90

  81

  85

  89

  Scottish Borders

  48

  51

  49

  50

  54

  Shetland Islands

  10

  11

  12

  12

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  46

  52

  60

  48

  47

  369W

  Total employment—Scottish unitary authorities, 1996–2000

  Thousand

  Area Name

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  South Lanarkshire

  147

  136

  141

  150

  142

  Stirling

  42

  33

  34

  36

  32

  West Dunbartonshire

  36

  42

  42

  35

  44

  West Lothian

  81

  83

  80

  76

  82

  1Spring of each year, refers to UAs with less than 10,000 employed in a particular year, where the survey is not reliable.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey

  Employment
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will provide a breakdown by industry of the jobs created in Scotland between 1 May 1997 and 1 July 1999. [145887]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Exact figures on job creation are not held centrally. However figures on employee jobs by sector (the lowest level of aggregation available for Scotland) are collected by the ONS on a quarterly basis. For the dates specified, the closest match is the June quarter. These figures do not include the self-employed.

  Employee jobs by sector, Scotland

  Thousand

  June

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  35.8

  32.4

  38.6

  Mining and Quarrying Industries

  24.9

  27.2

  26.0

  Manufacturing

  320.0

  315.9

  301.4

  Electricity Gas and Water Supply

  16.0

  16.7

  17.8

  Construction

  111.1

  117.5

  111.4

  Retail and Wholesale

  324.1

  316.4

  312.5

  Hotels and Catering

  120.2

  131.8

  127.7

  Transport Storage and Communication

  104.6

  106.5

  113.6

  Financial Services

  79.3

  77.6

  82.0

  Real Estate and Business Services

  206.6

  221.0

  229.4

  Public Administration

  126.1

  115.0

  148.1

  Education

  155.8

  152.6

  155.0

  Health and Social Work

  272.1

  263.2

  261.6

  Other services

  92.4

  98.4

  96.7

  Total

  1,989.1

  1,992.5

  2,021.7

  Note:

  Columns may not add up, owing to rounding

  Source:

  ONS Employer Surveys

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs were lost in Scotland in each year between 1 May 1997 and 1 July 1999, broken down by(a) sector and (b) industry. [145889]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer above, columns 368-69W. Figures are not held centrally for jobs lost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of asylum seekers and refugees placed in Scotland under the dispersal scheme. [145888]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer I6 January 2001]: Glasgow City is currently the only local authority in Scotland providing services for asylum claimants under
  370W
  the dispersal scheme implemented by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. At 30 March it was accommodating 1,301 principal asylum seekers (3,903 individuals) under these arrangements.

  The YMCA in Glasgow is also contracted to provide services under the dispersal scheme and at 30 March it was providing accommodation for 186 single asylum seekers.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149240]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The former Scottish Office issued 1,968 press releases in 1996–97; 2,162 in 1997–98 and 2,451 in 1998–99.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 the Department issued 174 press releases and 372 in 2000–01.

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in her Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149262]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Expenditure by the former Scottish Office was as follows:

  £

  Press advertising

  TV

  Radio

  Direct mail

  1996–97

  981,335

  1,160,447

  444,957

  —

  1997–98

  526,206

  814,874

  221,021

  63,473

  1998–99

  1,058,573

  2,371,073

  393,701

  89,080

  1999 April-June

  286,323

  378,719

  1,681

  —

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has carried out one advertising campaign on electoral registration. Expenditure was as follows:

  2000–01

  £

  Press advertising

  154,758

  TV

  163,073

  Radio

  —

  Direct mail

  —

  Ministerial Visits
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official representations abroad were made by Ministers in his Department in(a) 1997–98,

  371W
  (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; which countries were visited; in which capacity each visit was undertaken; and what was the cost of each visit. [150059]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since then Scotland Office Ministers have made a number of visits abroad for a variety of official purposes. The Secretary of State made visits to Spain and Italy and the Minister of State made visits to

  Azerbaijan

  Belgium

  Canada

  Cuba

  Egypt

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Ireland

  Japan/Manila

  Mexico

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Sweden

  Thailand

  Vietnam.

  The Minister of State's overseas visits were to promote Scottish trade or wider Scottish and UK interests. The total cost of ministerial overseas travel in 1999–2000 was £11,198 and £29,183 in 2000–01.

  The information for earlier years is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official trade representations abroad Scotland Office Ministers have made in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and which countries were visited. [150036]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 the Minister of State, who had trade responsibilities within the Department, made trade-related visits to France, Belgium, Italy, Egypt and the Far East (Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam). In 2000–01 the Minister made visits to Belgium; Azerbaijan; Germany; Sweden; Slovenia; Canada; Cuba; Italy and Japan.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate she has made for the staffing levels and running costs for the Scotland Office in the years 2000–01 and 2001–02. [150045]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Details of the staffing levels and running costs for the period to 2003–04 were set out in the Scotland Office Departmental Report 2001, which was published on 30 March 2001.
  372W
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the running costs of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and Advocate-General for Scotland were in each year since 1999–2000; how much of the budget in each year was allocated to(a) staff costs, (b) maintenance, (c) travel costs and (d) other expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [152351]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]: Information in the form requested is not available. Details of administration costs were set out in the Scotland Office Departmental Report 2001, which was published on 30 March 2001 and in the Department's annual accounts.

  In 1999–2000 expenditure on Scotland Office staff was £1,976,000 and on other administration costs was £1,991,000. Comparable figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate she has made of the total sums projected to be spent in Scotland in(a) this financial year and (b) each of the next two financial years (i) by the Scottish Executive and (ii) through direct spending by the Government of the UK. [152090]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of expenditure by the Scottish Executive were set out in "The Scottish Budget: Annual Expenditure Report" published by the Executive on 30 March 2001. Expenditure for 2000–01 was £17,997 million and is planned to be £19,823 million in 2001–02 and £21,022 million in 2002–03.

  Details of other direct spending by the UK Government in Scotland are not calculated for forward years. Information on public expenditure by country and function is published by the Treasury each year in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much certified timber has been purchased by her Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152108]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No timber has been purchased by my Department over the past six months.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152149]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An annual report will be provided in line with the answer given on 28 July 2000,Official Report, columns 947–48W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the number of Scots on benefits who have found employment under the New Deal scheme. [153128]
  373W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The New Deal has been a resounding success in Scotland with over 48,000 people going into jobs as a result of their participation in the New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25+, New Deal for Lone Parents and New Deal 50 plus.

  A/F Protein Inc.
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if her Office's(a) Ministers and (b) officials met, prior to devolution, representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, United States of America. [157766]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There is no record of Scottish Office Ministers or officials having met representatives of A/F Protein Inc. prior to devolution.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations her Office's(a) Ministers and (b) officials received, prior to devolution, from representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, United States of America; and what response she made. [157767]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No such representations were received by either Scottish Office Ministers or officials prior to devolution.

  GM Food (Research)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the projects funded by the Scottish Office from 1990 to devolution on scientific research into(a) genetically modified and (b) transgenic fish in the UK and abroad, by research project title, indicating the purpose of the research, the project timespan, its total cost and recipient research centres. [157765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No scientific projects on genetically modified or transgenic fish have been directly funded by the Scottish Office since 1990.

  Special Advisers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions between 5 June 2000 and 31 March 2001(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [158544]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No special advisers for am my Department have travelled abroad in an official capacity.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in her Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158126]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies.

  In respect of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, the only public body for which I am responsible, there was no specific age limit for applications in the last round of appointments for membership, in 1998.

  Irish Visit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Irish Government departments the Permanent Under-Secretary of State met during his visit of 10–11 February 1999. [159796]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Permanent Under-Secretary of State met officials from the Department of An Taoiseach, the Clerk of the Dail, and the Department of Foreign Affairs during his visit to Dublin of 10–11 February 1999.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost was of employing special advisers in her Department and its predecessor from 1997 to date. [160050]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer I May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on 9 April 2001, Official Report, column 425W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers worked in her Department and its predecessor from 1997 to date. [160035]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: In the Scottish Office in 1997–98 there were two special advisers and during 1998–99 there were three special advisers in post at any given time.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01 there were three special advisers in post at any one time, one of whom was unpaid. There are currently two special advisers.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what target levels have been set for the aims and objectives of the Employment Service in Scotland in operational year 2001–02. [161065]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The aim of the Employment Service is to help people without jobs find work and employers to fill their vacancies. The Employment Service in Scotland makes an important contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to delivering the Government's welfare to work policies, working in close partnership with employers and others. These targets pave the way for the new agency, Jobcentre Plus, whose pathfinder offices will begin work in October. They give stronger emphasis than ever before to helping individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from unemployment and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. The highest priority will be given to helping people who have been economically inactive for long periods, including lone parents, to find work, and to capitalise on the opportunities created by the new generation of New Deals.

  I am announcing today the targets we have set for Scotland. They are challenging and stretching. We are looking for improved levels of customer service to jobseekers and employers, together with consolidation of the improved performance against the Jobseeker's Allowance Labour Market Activity target. These targets cover a full year, but we propose to carry out a

  375W
  comprehensive consultation and review later in the year that will inform the setting of targets for the new agency for people of working age, called Jobcentre Plus, for 2002–03.

  The targets for the Employment Service in Scotland for 2001–02 are:

  Vision and Purpose

  The Employment Service in Scotland aims to make a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to the Government's objectives of an increase in the effective supply of labour, and countering poverty and social exclusion by helping welfare recipients facing the most severe disadvantages to compete effectively for jobs. It does this by working closely with employers and with its private, voluntary and public sector partners to provide a quality service for all people without a job and to promote employment opportunities for all who can work. It aims to attract a diverse range of vacancies and to fill those vacancies quickly by matching the right people and skills with the right jobs. Its chief priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It does this through correct application of the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) regime, delivery of the New Deals, and the provision of appropriate information, advice, training and support. The challenge and opportunity for the Employment Service, is to sustain continuous improvement in its services to jobseekers and employers and to make these services more accessible and relevant to customer needs, through effective use of modern technology and close working with a wide range of partners.

  Aim

  To help people without jobs find work and employers to fill their vacancies.

  Objectives and Targets

  Objective A
  To help all people without jobs, and particularly those on welfare and at a disadvantage in the labour market, to find and keep work by providing appropriate information, advice, training and support and by encouraging employers to open more opportunities to them.

  Targets
  Al: To help into work 7.214 people who are either jobless lone parents, participants in the New Deal for Partners, participants in the New Deal for Disabled People or other disabled people claiming 'inactive' benefits.
  A2: To help into work 46,517 participants in the JSA New Deals, New Deal 50+, Employment Zones, other disabled people not recorded in Al. and others at a particular disadvantage.
  A3: To help into work 90,202 welfare recipients and other disadvantaged people.
  A4: To help into work 150,788 jobless people.
  A5: For 75 per cent. of long-term JSA claimants to be off benefit 13 weeks after starting a job into which they were placed by the Employment Service.

  Objective B
  To ensure that the rights and relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA and other benefits are fulfilled, while helping to combat fraud and abuse of the benefit system.
  376W
  Target
  B I: To ensure that the relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA are fulfilled in 91 per cent. of cases checked.

  Objective C
  To harness new technology, the pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement to deliver effective, efficient and accessible services to all people without jobs and to employers in Jobcentres and increasingly through other locations and means of communications.

  Targets
  CI: To achieve a 93 per cent. customer service level for jobseekers.
  C2: To achieve an 83 per cent. customer service level for employers.

  Objective D
  To deliver services to all ES customers in a way which respects individual differences, helps to overcome disadvantages due to ethnicity, gender, age or disability and achieves the best possible outcome for each of them.

  Targets
  D1: From October To achieve a proportion of new ethnic minority claimants who leave JSA for a job within 12 months, which is equal to the percentage of all white claimants leaving JSA for a job within 12 months (to work towards equality of outcomes by 2004.) (Target level to be announced.
  D2: From October: To screen benefit claimants for basic skills requirement and N here needed refer to appropriate training. (Exact target wording and level to be announced.)

  Milestone Target
  By 30 September 2001, for 95 per cent. of jobseekers claiming JSA to have been asked to identify their ethnicity and for this answer to be recorded.

  Employment (Glasgow)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in (i) the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok and (ii) Glasgow (1) in 1997 and (2) the latest date for which figures are available; and what the percentage change was in each case. [160923]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table shows the number of people who were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in (i) the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok and (ii) Glasgow City in September 1997 and December 1999 respectively; and what the percentage change was in each case.

  Employee jobs 1997; and 1999—Glasgow, Pollok parliamentary constituency and Glasgow City unitary authority

  1997

  1999

  Change(Percentage)

  Glasgow

  Pollok

  Full-time

  8,900

  9,600

  7.9

  Part-time

  4,100

  4,100

  0.0

  Glasgow City

  Full-time

  236,200

  249,000

  5.4

  Part-time

  90,500

  93,700

  3.5

  Source:

  Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics

Preamble
The House met at eleven-thirty of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Local Public Service Agreements
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact they expect local public service agreements to have on the best value regime for local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government expect that local public service agreements will complement the best value framework in improving the quality and responsiveness of our public services. They will do so by testing the extent to which extra funding and regulatory freedoms can help stretch performance beyond the standards already achieved under best value and will inform best value policy development ill the future.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps the noble Lord recalls telling the House during Second Reading of the Local Government Bill that,
"Best value is about improving local services. It is about local government providing high quality services at reasonable cost that match local people's needs … No longer will they be able to provide minimal services at minimum cost … Best value rings a death knell for that approach".—[Official Report, 12/4/99; col. 572.]
Is the noble Lord saying that best value has not delivered those objectives and has been a failure? Can the Minister tell the House whether the inspection of the system is costing more than the £50 million that he estimated it would cost?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recall every moment of the passage of the Local Government Bill. Best value, which is a major feature of that Bill, is being adopted by all authorities across the whole range of service delivery and is achieving significant results. The cost of inspection is a relatively small figure compared with the benefit which we expect to achieve from the continuous improvement through best value. At that point in the Bill I was contrasting that output and performance-related approach with the heavy bureaucracy of the CCT regime which it replaced. As to additional funding and the relaxation of the regulation of local government, local PSAs will provide a further incentive to look at novel and better ways to deliver services.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that the imposition by
1070
central government of hundreds of performance indicators and targets does anything to create local authorities which are accountable and responsive to local needs? Can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to monitor the burgeoning best value bureaucracy to see whether the process itself is delivering best value?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the monitoring procedure to which we have already referred is intended to ensure that delivery meets expectations. Inevitably, within the system there is some resistance to the new process, and occasionally there are bureaucratic difficulties. But best value is related to output and performance. How output is achieved is up to the management of individual local authorities and their services. There is a great incentive for innovation and improvements in efficiency in local authorities, and that is what the whole best value regime is about. The regime is not an imposition but an opportunity for public services.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether what he has said is affected by the recent decision by the European Commission to outlaw gap funding which has brought considerable benefits to various local authorities within which approved schemes lie? Is he aware that report HC 714 of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions shows in detail how perverse (to use its own word) and unwarranted is the Commission's decision to disallow this in future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at first sight the implications of that decision would appear to be as my noble friend indicates. However, we are in constructive discussion as to how best to meet the needs which that funding previously met to conform with the Commission's view of the European regulations in this matter. I do not believe that it will have the devastating effect that my noble friend suggests or the Select Committee indicates.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is rather euphemistic to say that this is being adopted by local authorities? As I understand the position as set out by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches, local authorities have no choice. Can the noble Lord clarify whether, although compulsory competitive tendering has gone, competitive tendering can still be part of the best value process, or has tendering gone altogether?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the legislation may oblige local authorities to adopt best value, but the majority of local authorities do so enthusiastically. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a euphemism to say that local authorities are adopting it. As to competitive tendering, the previous very restrictive rules under CCT have been removed, but in order to deliver under the new system local authorities have the freedom to decide whether or not to go for competitive tendering. Many do so; others consider that either their existings

1071
contractors or in-house arrangements can deliver best value. It is that choice which is now available to local authorities.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, at the close of Parliament, does the Minister agree that today's suggestion put forward by the Conservative Party that local authorities would be required to undertake a local referendum if they wished to raise the precept by more than the rate of inflation will greatly further undermine the independence of local authorities and add a huge amount of additional bureaucracy to administration?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, indeed. I am always amazed at the schizophrenia of the Conservative Party in this respect. They turn up in this House and in another place and complain about the imposition of centralisation by central government on local government. Sometimes I have some sympathy with them, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, knows. But then on the first day of a General Election campaign the party turns to local authorities and says, "You will have no choice. If you want a little bit of flexibility on your budget you have to go through this referendum process". If local authorities wish to go through that process, that is a matter for them, it is not a matter for imposition by central government.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Blackburn is one of the most outstanding progressive local authorities in this country? For some time it has adopted the principle of best value. May I invite my noble friend and any other noble Lords who want to see the benefits from best value to come to Blackburn and look at what we are doing there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend has made me well aware of the virtues of Blackburn in this and many other contexts. So far as concerns an invitation to Blackburn, clearly I and my colleagues would be only too delighted to visit Blackburn, both in order to observe the best value and, indeed, the football.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his eulogy of the best value system in the past is hardly consistent with that of his right honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He describes it simply and merely as a "useful set of arrangements". However, is it not remarkable that after four years of government, the Treasury is instigating a leap in the dark in management services based on the document Choosing the Right Fabric: The framework for Performance Information? That publication includes such cliché gems as,
"to develop an education strategy, information will be needed on how well the current system is doing, and likely pressures in the future, such as increases in the number of school age children".
1072
Anyone working in an education authority 30 years ago was familiar with that opinion. It also states:
"The cost of producing performance information should be balanced against the use of the information and how it will improve performance".
Does the Minister really believe that we can develop a new and improved management system based on clichés that have been around for so long that most people in local government could teach the Government how to manage their affairs?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, sometimes in this House, and even in government publications, we have to point out the obvious. Best value is indeed a useful set of arrangements, but it is also, as I said, an amazing new opportunity for local government to deliver to the people.

Developing Countries: Corruption
11.46 a.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to combat corruption in developing countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our bilateral programmes provide a wide range of assistance relevant to the needs of each country. They include support for national anti-corruption strategies; for example, the establishment of specific anti-corruption agencies; strengthening capacity for financial management; strengthening public oversight through parliaments; and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability.
The Department for International Development is also collaborating with other development agencies and contributing to multilateral efforts, through supporting the strengthening of financial intelligence units and regional anti-money laundering mechanisms.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that positive answer. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of Transparency International. But, bearing in mind the substantial criticism of the Government by the signatory states of the OECD anti-bribery convention and the fact that our law has not been updated since 1916, will the Government now leave the company of Turkey, Brazil, Argentina and Chile— the only remaining states not to implement the convention—and bring forward legislation to make it an offence for British citizens to bribe foreign public officials, as promised in the White Paper?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Home Office published proposals for reform in June 2000. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Whitaker is aware that we are committed to putting beyond doubt by legislation our compliance with the OECD convention. Exceptionally, that will extend jurisdiction to cover

1073
acts of corruption committed abroad by UK nationals, which takes the convention wider. One effect will be to clarify that there can be no tax deductibility for bribes.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, following on from that answer, can the Minister say whether this is a matter of priority, because 38 of the 50 companies blacklisted by the World Bank for promoting corruption are actually domiciled in the UK?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it has come to our attention that those 38 companies are owned or operated by only two people.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister agree that in countries such as Benin—where the Government of President Kérékou have firmly spoken out against the practice of child slavery and the use of children as forced labour—nevertheless, the involvement of western companies, particularly in the manufacture of cocoa and subsequently in the chocolate industry, is frequently through collaboration with racketeering and profiteering in both countries? It is very difficult in a country such as Benin, which is strapped for resources, to have the necessary policing arrangements to prevent such corruption taking place. Is there anything further that Her Majesty's Government can do, not least in the light of the recent tragedy in Benin?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have a clear anti-corruption strategy which has four different elements to it. We are supporting developing countries that are themselves committed to effective anti-corruption policies. We want to drive out bribery from international trade and business, which was the nub of the noble Lord's question. We want to deter money laundering and protect development assistance. In addition, we work with organisations such as the ILO on issues of forced child labour to ensure that standards are in place in developing countries to protect children from forced labour.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, fighting corruption in developing countries is extremely important. The noble Baroness and her noble friend are absolutely correct about that. Is it not important to ensure that corrupt practices that are widespread around the world and are too often regarded as customs are not introduced or re-injected back into our own country? Is it not even more important to ensure that everyone in our own Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, has the greatest possible care and scruple in any connection or communication with people from developing countries who have been suspected or charged with practices of this kind?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not surprised by the noble Lord's question, which is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I thought that noble
1074
Lords opposite could not resist this opportunity to make what I can only describe as a cheap electioneering point. I absolutely refuse to indulge in it because it is the present Government who have taken pains to ensure that corruption, both at home and abroad, does not feature in our politics.

Gas Supply
11.52 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there could be a shortage in the supply of gas at peak periods.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there are provisions in the regulatory framework to ensure that shippers and suppliers take adequate steps to meet peak demand for gas. The independent regulator, Ofgem, has recently brought forward proposals to add to this framework. In addition, there are well tested procedures within the industry to manage any shortfalls in supply, such as drawing on gas from storage and invoking interruptible contracts. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government and the regulator are fully aware of the importance of all aspects of security of supply and that we continue to keep them under close review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reassuring response. Is he aware of recent reports that in peak periods of a harsh winter the gas supply might be short? Is he further aware of the doubts expressed about the efficacy of the gas pipeline due to a shortage of maintenance engineers? In those circumstances, would it not be right to put even greater emphasis on diversity of supply, notably from renewables and from the development of clean coal technology?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, there has been only one instance of concern about the Interconnector and how it was operated in a situation where there were conflicting demands on it. That was the incident on 15th January 2001 when the flow of gas in the Interconnector was from a high price in the UK to a slightly lower one in Zeebrugge. That was a cause of concern and that is why we have asked the European Commission to look at the governance of the Interconnector. It was possible to deal with that situation in a reasonably favourable way. There are strong reasons for having diversity of energy supplies, including renewables, but that is a wider and more important issue than simply the failure of the Interconnector to achieve the right economic fundamental result on one occasion.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although it is gratifying that the Government have thought seriously about the problem, is it not the case that the arrangements in place will be increasingly tested as we move further into a dependency on overseas gas

1075
supplies? In that connection, could not the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, be given further consideration?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is certainly true that as we go, as we almost certainly will, into a period when rather than exporting gas we import it—that is likely to take place in 2005—the Interconnector will become even more important to the interests of this country. It will be essential that the governance of the Interconnector should be of the highest standard in reflecting economic fundamentals rather than any other considerations. Over and above that, we want diversity of energy supplies because that is key to our security in a much wider sense.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, given the inevitability of a shortage of gas supplies sooner or later, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have investigated the possibility of generating gas from our large coal resources, which are now largely unexploited?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give a precise answer to the noble Lord, but we will have to look increasingly at energy research to ensure that we have the best research on the most promising areas. That will ensure that we have the greatest diversity of energy sources as we go from being self-sufficient in energy to being reliant on other countries for our energy.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, who is now responsible for the clean coal research that used to be carried out by the Gas Corporation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a large programme of research into clean coal. As far as I know, the Energy Group within the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for research in that area, but I shall write to my noble friend and confirm that.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Minister has made only the most oblique of references to renewable energy, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Can the Minister expand a little on the ways in which the Government are encouraging the promotion and development of renewable energy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have an enormous programme of research on renewable energy. The Department of Trade and Industry provides money for that. We now have the Carbon Trust programme of research and diffusion of that technology. Across government large amounts of money are being put into renewables. There may be room for debate on whether that research money is being allocated to the right areas—for example, whether enough is going on research for the hydrogen economy—but a good deal of money is certainly going into energy research.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should look not only at the supply of gas but also at demand? As noble Lords opposite have been trying to link all the Questions so far to the general election, does he not share in my surprise that they have not contemplated what would have happened to the demand for gas had the Government not had the foresight to remove VAT from it? Would there not have been a serious supply problem for many pensioners?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not want in any way to make a political statement, but I think that my noble friend makes an excellent point.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, at some stage the issue of nuclear power will have to be considered. Can the Minister explain why it has taken more than two years for the Government to come up with their Green Paper on the disposal of nuclear waste? It is a key issue.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, our research into future energy supplies is extremely important. The area of nuclear waste is complicated and it is essential to get it right.

Tourism
11.59 a.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What results they expect from £12 million they have committed to advertising British tourism abroad.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have made available an additional £14.2 million rather than £12 million to the British Tourist Authority in this financial year, bringing total funding to £49.7 million. The BTA anticipates that that will set it on course to generate around £1.1 billion in additional expenditure by overseas visitors to Britain. The Government expect that to help to minimise any adverse effects of the foot and mouth outbreak on Britain's receipts from inbound tourism in 2001. We expect that tourism to the UK will receive a further boost in 2002, the Golden Jubilee year, and that demand will be stimulated for future years.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the House will accept the figures given by the noble Lord and dissociate itself from his remarks as regards foot and mouth disease.
Is the Minister aware that when, on this coming Saturday, I lay out my Ray-Ban sunglasses and leather trousers in order to ride my motorcycle to the Cannes Film Festival—this is a serious business—I shall do so in the absolute certainty that on the way there I shall be travelling on good roads, eating good food, staying in a clean and cheap hotel and receiving excellent service? Will the Minister consider the remarks made by the influential Lonely Planet guide to Britain?

1077
Although complimentary about some of the attractions in this country, in its summary it offers the view that Britain is an expensive country with bad weather, undesirable food and questionable service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has sought to denigrate the attraction of Britain as a tourist destination in comparison with other countries. I do not say that his denigration is absolute, but certainly it is in contrast to what he says about other destinations. I have to say to the noble Viscount that the Government do not take that view. Income from inbound tourism has continued to increase over the years, so something must be going for this country, and the Government are not responsible for the weather.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in view of the devastating damage still being caused to the tourism industry as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, along with the fact that any upturn in inbound tourism is not likely to take place for some time to come, what steps will the Government take to help those parts of the tourist industry which will have the greatest difficulty surviving in any form until the upturn arrives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first role of the Government must be in line with the Question and Answer which has already taken place; namely, to try to overcome the problems by encouraging inbound tourism. That is exactly what the Government have been doing. In addition to those efforts, the Government have offered significant extra support for domestic tourism. Only this week we announced funding of £24 million for the regional development agencies' Rural Business Development Fund to help tourism in the worst hit areas. Grant aid of up to £15,000 is available to help small businesses. Assistance is offered with promotion to help encourage visitors to return. Furthermore, there has been an acceleration in rural regeneration projects. All this must be seen as complementary to our efforts to bring visitors back.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is it not the case that Labour governments have helped the British tourism industry, as exemplified by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, while Conservative governments have failed to help, as exemplified by the airport departing passenger duty, which represents a stealth poll tax on American, Japanese and Korean visitors coming to this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. When I answered the third Question of this Parliament by stating, "My noble friend is absolutely right", I had been waiting 14 years to use those words. Now that I am answering the last Question of this Parliament, I am glad to have the opportunity to repeat myself.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I recognise that an awful lot of electioneering is taking place today, but I
1078
think the Minister will agree that it is the case that most tourism in this country is home generated. The injection of £24 million is rather pathetic and represents only peanuts for the regional development agencies. Although that sum is at least something, is there any chance that, during the last two days of this Government, some effort could be made to increase it by a factor of at least 100 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, over the last two days of this Parliament, Ministers will continue to carry out their duties. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that from this stage onwards it is not considered proper for new government ventures to take place.
I do not think that the financial help I outlined in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is peanuts. The sum represents significant assistance. Furthermore, in addition to the help being offered to businesses themselves, we have made available additional funding of £3.8 million to the English Tourism Council. That money was not included in the figures cited in my original Answer. It has been made available on top of the very significant increases in real terms to funding over the current three-year period.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his original Answer to the Question put by the noble Viscount was rather short on results overseas? Can he offer any tangible evidence of such results? I speak as someone whose American cousins are unwilling to come over to stay with me in Dorset because of the alleged foot and mouth outbreak.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that it is still early days to look for results in terms of bookings. Of course it is a fact that the BTA has recorded a significant decline in bookings, in particular from the United States and from some, but not all, European countries. However, the combination of direct marketing activity and the efforts being directed at encouraging travel agents and tour operators based in other countries to return to this country will, I am sure, achieve an effect over the coming months.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister slightly further on this point. Will be accept that this question is not of a party political or electioneering nature? I, too, have American friends who have expressed the fear that, if they visit this country, they will then take hoof and mouth—as they call it—back to the United States. Can the British Government issue a categorical denial that that is not in any way a possibility? Such a denial would greatly assist farmers, not least in my diocese, who have suffered as the result of both farming problems and the loss of bed-and-breakfast custom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not only could we do that; we have been doing so. Ministers, staff representatives of the British Tourist Authority in other countries and our Diplomatic Service have been

1079
energetic in their promotion of the truth about foot and mouth disease. Unfortunately, many people think that it is the same thing as BSE.

Armed Forces Bill
12.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
"CONTINUANCE OF THE 1955 AND 1957 ACTS
The power otherwise conferred in this Part to continue the 1955 Acts and the 1957 Act in force by Order shall cease to have effect on 31st December 2004 unless there has been brought before each House of Parliament before that date a measure to bring the discipline of all the armed services together into a single statute."
The noble Lord said: This is the first time that I have addressed a Committee of your Lordships' House during the rush for the doors. I do not think it worth while to try to make any serious points while that is going on, except to say that,
"The tumult and the shouting dies—
The captains and the kings depart"—
to which I was slightly startled to find that Father Ronnie Knox added the lines,
"And we are left with large supplies
Of cold blancmange and rhubarb tart".
Amendment No. 1 raises a point about which we on these Benches have been making a fuss for some considerable time. To be quite fair, it has also caused concern on the now government side of the Chamber. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Attlee and I stated in the strongest terms that it really is time that we had a unified discipline Bill for the three services.
In the debates on what is now the Armed Forces Discipline Act, my noble friends and I strongly made the point that we must have a single tri-service discipline Act. In 1966, in the debates on the Armed Forces Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, standing where I am now, raised the same point. He was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. In replying from the Dispatch Box, my noble friend Lord Howe said that a start had been made in 1991 after the introduction of the previous Armed Forces Act.
So attempts to introduce a single tri-service discipline Bill go back at least 10 years, and I suspect—I have not checked—as far as the original Acts in 1975 and 1977. That is too long. Not only this government
1080
but all governments are at fault for not kicking the legal people in the Ministry of Defence to get a move on.
Members of the Armed Forces spend so much time with one another—they work together and they play together—that we must have a unified discipline Act. It is with this in mind that I have tabled these two amendments. I hope that I will be able to persuade the Minister to give an assurance that we will get a move on and attempt to place such an Act on the statute book. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We strongly support the sentiments behind the amendment. We hope that the Government will give the strongest possible reassurance that it will not take another five years.
Lord Renton: We should bear in mind this further point. In my experience on active service during the Second World War, it was frequently the case that Army units, especially divisional and brigade headquarters, had attached to them officers of the RAF—perhaps only one officer—who might have a clerk attached with them. Then, as areas were occupied along the coast of Egypt and Libya, naval officers would come along from ships in the Mediterranean to co-operate with the Army. It is essential that we should bear in mind such occasions.
There has been an all-party tendency over the past 40 years to bring the Armed Forces closer together in their higher command in London. That they should have separate and different kinds of discipline, and different ways of enforcing it, really is quite absurd.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am a little surprised by the wording of the amendments. Not only do the amendments seek to curtail the usual five years between Bills introduced to continue the service discipline Acts, they seek also to prevent those Acts being continued at all unless tri-service legislation has been introduced. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has taken that point on board.
To include such a provision in the Bill would leave us with no leeway in the future; it would force us to bring forward new tri-service legislation regardless of its state of readiness and whether it was suitable to present to your Lordships and to another place. That would do a disservice to our Armed Forces. It would subordinate the overriding objective of preserving effective procedures for the maintenance of discipline to a completely arbitrary timetable.
When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was addressing this issue, he was talking about consolidation of the three single service Acts, not about creating a unified Act, which is what we are talking about. Although I agree that consolidation would be a worthwhile goal in itself, it would not give us an opportunity to harmonise or in other ways change the body of service legislation, which is the kind of Bill that we wish to bring forward.
There is little difference between us on this issue; we all want to see tri-service legislation brought forward as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham,

1081
was frank enough to admit that previous Conservative governments had not taken this issue forward as quickly as they might have done. The Committee will recall that during the Second Reading debate I assured the House that we will examine the feasibility of introducing a. tri-service discipline Bill within the next three years. But, of course, I also pointed out that the key was to ensure that the legislation was appropriate for the services.
I ask the Committee to entrust to the Ministry of Defence—and, indeed, to the services themselves—the decision about when such fundamental legislation should be introduced. Given the assurance that I have noted very carefully the strength of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the points made in support of the amendment by other Members of the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Burnham: I thank the Minister for those remarks. I freely admit that the amendment was tabled as a threat. Had we had more time to discuss the Bill—it has been very curtailed—we would have pursued this issue at length. I do not think it is good enough that it should be 10 years—with every prospect of another five years—before we get the legislation for which we are looking. It was a threat because the amendment was designed to introduce a specific date by which the Ministry of Defence would be compelled to come up with something.
I thank the noble Baroness for her concluding remarks. She made it quite clear that work will be done. The purpose of the amendment is that when the House comes, in 2006, to debate the Armed Forces Bill and finds that there is still no provision to introduce a consolidated or unified Bill, whoever is dealing with the matter, on both sides of the House, will be able to look hack and say that quite a fuss was made in 2001. We cannot make a longer fuss—we do not have the time—and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [continuance of service Acts]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers to stop and search persons, vehicles etc]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley: I oppose the Question. I do so to draw attention to a real concern that the responsibility, and above all the authority, of a commanding officer is being eroded. I do not think that there is any division or any split between the Government and those with a long interest and long experience in these matters, but the authority of the commanding officer is of key importance to operational effectiveness.
1082
Owing to the short notice that was given of this Committee stage and the tabling of amendments, I must explain that the thrust of the numerous proposals standing in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, is to strike Part 2 from the Bill. I should also say that the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Bramall are both with me in spirit but, regrettably, because notice of today's proceedings was so short they have been unable to alter other pressing commitments in order to attend. Indeed, I myself am forgoing a very enjoyable lunch at the Ritz today!
If the fistful of proposals in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and myself could have been tabled more elegantly, I hope that the Committee will forgive me. Shortage of time and our concern to give this topic a proper airing today in Committee are my excuse. So, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to speak to the generality of our opposition to Clauses 2 to 16 as a whole.
I greatly regret that a constitutional Bill such as this has become a victim of the procedures that apply at the end of a Parliament. The Bill must pass into law before the end of 2001. However, I consider it a great discourtesy to the Armed Forces, on whom we rely so heavily, that the significant changes to their disciplinary practices and procedures introduced in the Bill are being taken through virtually on the nod.
How do we explain such cavalier behaviour, when several months of parliamentary time will remain before the end of the new Session of Parliament after the election? The reasoning behind these amendments and those of other Members of the Committee are worthy of proper scrutiny. The views of Members in this place are being by-passed in an unconstitutional way.
However, that background alone is not enough to justify taking up the time of the Committee. There are key aspects of the content of Part 2 which concern me greatly. Because time is short, I shall confine myself to three issues. The first is the fundamental change that the authority of the commanding officer in matters of discipline should no longer rely on the inherent powers which for years, perhaps centuries, he or she has had. I suspect—but this is a matter more for lawyers than for me—that these inherent powers have been based on Crown prerogative. I believe, therefore, that the Bill, in raising concerns about long-standing reliance on the authority of the Crown prerogative in this area, may be laying open questions about prerogative authority in other areas of defence and national business.
I leave it to others far better qualified than Ito deal with the legal bones of this issue. My point is that the Government should be able to assure the Committee that they have given careful consideration to what might be called the law of unintended consequences. If there is a legal reason to doubt the authority of Crown prerogative in this area, have all other areas which may rely on it been considered? The danger of abandoning it in one key area but continuing to rely on it ill others seems a dangerous route to follow.

1083
So if, as I assume, the so-called inherent powers of the commanding officer have relied up to now on Crown prerogative, the Committee needs to be aware of that, and to take into consideration the other areas where reliance continues to be placed on Crown prerogative before abandoning it in relation to the inherent powers of the commanding officer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comment on this point.
My second concern relates to the statement in the helpful Explanatory Notes which the MoD issued with the Bill. In paragraph 15 on page 5 we are told that,
"the scope of these [inherent] powers is unclear. It is desirable that they should be clarified and put on a statutory footing".
The notes state, in paragraph 17, that this would provide,
"that extra certainty and independent legal supervision of applications for permission to search, to avoid the risk of a successful challenge to searches being made under the European Convention on Human Rights".
That seemed clear, and I drew attention to it in my Second Reading speech. In a letter commenting on my remarks—and I thank her for taking the trouble to respond so fully—the Minister said that the changes being introduced in Part 2 were not driven by the European Convention on Human Rights. She went on to say that Part 2 responds to the long-standing wish of the services to have a clear structure and definition for their powers in these areas. Well, that was news to me; and while I would not wish to challenge the Minister's information, I feel that there is something unsatisfactory about the way in which Members of this place have been given a variety of rationales for Part 2.
In her letter to me, the Minister also quoted extracts from the evidence given by the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in another place. In those remarks the CDS indicates his view that there is nothing in the Bill which would make discipline more difficult to maintain, and that some of the powers which are being given to our service police in terms of search will also help to smooth the way in which discipline will be conducted. I know that the Chief of the Defence Staff has been trying to reach me by telephone over the past 24 hours. I regret that we have not been able to speak; either he has missed me, or when I tried his number it was always engaged. He is now in Italy.
On the narrow issue of the Bill's impact on the authority of the commanding officer, I have little difficulty in accepting what the CDS said in his carefully worded evidence. He certainly could not be expected to tell the committee that it was all rubbish. My point, and that of the other noble and gallant Lords, is that this change should be seen alongside the other series of changes which have had an impact on the authority of the commanding officer in recent years. Apart from the Human Rights Act, we have seen changes in the procedures for summary punishments and for courts martial, worries about the impact of the International Criminal Court legislation, and so on.
1084
It is the collective impact which concerns me; and it is only because I have been privileged to sit in this House for the past 10 years that I have been given a much broader canvas on which to judge these matters. Like the proverbial straws on the camel's back, little by little we are adding to the erosion of the inherent powers, and thus the perceived authority, of the commanding officer. Those Members of the Committee who were present for the Second Reading debate or who noted what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and I said—he far more eloquently than I can aspire to—about the crucial importance of the commanding officer in all of the services' business, whether in terms of ethos, operations or leadership, as well as in matters of discipline, will appreciate the broad point.
The services rely greatly on self-discipline, and on the leadership and trust that is given by and to the commanding officer. The commanding officer has already proved himself as a potential commander and he has earned his place to take the overall charge that is placed upon him of his unit. COs have commented on the additional bureaucracy of the summary disciplinary arrangements. Part 2 of the Bill will add another large fistful of paperwork to ensure that its provisions are administered correctly. And so it goes on.
So the kernel of my concerns relates to the many specific reductions in the powers of the commanding officer in the disciplinary field, and to the fact that the authority of the CO must relate to his operational and other command responsibilities as well as to his responsibilities in the field of discipline.
Part 2 of the Bill erodes the commanding officer's authority. I shall not trouble Members of the Committee by drawing attention to the many words and phrases in Part 2 which spell that out. The clauses are all, by and large, of a restrictive nature. Given more time, I would accept that there may well be parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that should be incorporated into service law. But one has to ask why it has taken over 15 years to get round to bringing such provisions forward. I surmise that it is because, at that time, it was argued successfully that Crown prerogative gave a proper defence in law and more was not needed.
My third and final point follows the discussions that we have had over the introduction of a combined Bill to cover the three services. It would seem sensible, if such a provision is to see the light of day, that the issues that are being raised in relation to Part 2 today should be held over and given the thorough consideration and debate that they so richly deserve. At the end of the day my concern—and it is a very real one—is that the erosion in disciplinary authority cannot but read across eventually to operational authority. We shall not have successful Armed Forces of the calibre that we now enjoy if we have eventually eroded the status and trust that have traditionally formed part and parcel of the role of command. I oppose the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in his remarks and what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said at Second Reading on the position of commanding officers. They have pointed out that the authority and effectiveness of commanding officers could be undermined by Clauses 2 to 16.
I shall, of course, be brief in what I have to say. The considerable powers and discretion that have been granted to that level of rank—the rank, in the Army, being lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion, or its equivalent—have been an important element in our armed services. I shall not repeat what they have said, but I should like to add the following element. The position of the commanding officer in the British Army counted for a great deal on active service and on operations in the Second World War, in which I served as a regular officer throughout; that is, from 1939 to 1945.
I could not remain in the Army because I was severely wounded and partially disabled at the end of the war. However, before then, I commanded a field battery in a Scottish infantry division for three years. I was not the commanding officer—he was the lieutenant-colonel commanding the field regiment—but I was very close to him during those three years and to the commanding officers of the infantry battalions with whom we were operating in our division. Of course, I am now out of date on military matters, having had to leave the Army in 1946 following my discharge from hospital. However, my remarks today are intended to reinforce the concern that has been expressed by very eminent former senior officers from their experience. I should like to add to that from my limited war experience during the whole of Second World War.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a few brief remarks in support of the noble and gallant Lord's opposition to the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. When one considers the comments that I have made in recent days in this House, it may seem strange that I should be supporting him on an issue of the sanctity of the chain of command. However, I can assure noble Lords that there is no inconsistency here. To some extent, my worry is the same as that of the noble and gallant Lord; namely, that this is a constitutional matter.
I am not speaking of constitutional law, or even of military law; I am speaking of the constitution in the sense of the broad scheme of things under which a constitutional democracy is run and governed. It seems to me that the effect of this Bill might be to bring about—in however small a way—a further erosion of what we understand as the constitution in this country. I point no finger at any government when I say this, but it appears that respect and support for the constitution in that broader sense have been, and are being, eroded very considerably. As I say, that is no fault of any specific government because it has been happening over a long period of time. However, I believe that we ought perhaps to do something to halt
1086
that erosion. As the noble and gallant Lord said, that might at some time be the straw that actually breaks the camel's back.
Therefore, my first point is that this is a matter of constitutional importance, not just of importance to the Armed Forces. However, there is also the point about the position of the Armed Forces within the over-arching constitution and the civil law. As I have said in another context in this House, military law must always be subordinate—and this is generally accepted in this country—to civil law. However, within that broad framework, we are also in danger of forgetting something else; namely, that the Armed Forces, consisting of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, have a very special role to play. Again, I believe that we are tending to forget that and allowing the special nature of the Armed Forces, and respect for them, to be eroded.
That is especially true of the role of the commanding officer. It does not matter whether he is a CO in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—or, indeed, whether he is commanding a battalion, a squadron of aircraft, a frigate, or whether he is the lieutenant-colonel, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned. The commanding officer is probably the most important person involved. Whichever service he is in, the CO is the most significant link in a very important chain of command. Therefore, anything that tends to diminish or erode the commanding officer's power and responsibility, and the respect in which he is held, is undesirable and should be resisted.
However, my real reason for contributing to this brief debate this morning is to stress something that I believe has already been said by the noble and gallant Lord. It is a great shame that a Bill of such importance should be taken during the last two days before the dissolution of Parliament. The Bill has enormous implications, not only as regards the commanding officer and his role but also as regards the whole role of the Armed Forces. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, there is the possibility that sooner or later we might—at last—have a tri-service discipline Act. I believe that we should be discussing a Bill of this importance in that context.
I must, therefore, support the noble and gallant Lord in this respect. It seems very sad to me that we are deciding this morning within just a few minutes, in a thin House, matters that will affect not only the role of the Armed Forces and that of the commanding officer but also, possibly, the constitution of this country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised some broad issues. I have to say from these Benches that we are in favour of reform of the constitution. As I have been occasionally involved, I note that we are spending a considerable amount of time with our NATO allies, hoping to reorganise the armed forces of the former Warsaw Pact and to insist that armed forces recognise that, in a democracy, they should as far as possible stem from civil society and be subject to some of the disciplines of civil society. That also seems to be entirely appropriate in this country.

1087
We are advised that serving officers in the Armed Forces are not, at present, unduly concerned about these clauses but that they assume that the essential principles of the Armed Forces disciplinary procedures are not fundamentally affected. Of course, there will have to be some differences in military discipline from civilian life. However, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that the differences should continue for their own sake. We do not believe that the authority of the commanding officer is being eroded by these necessary modernisations. They are partly designed to bring such procedures into line with the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and partly relate to the European Convention on Human Rights, which we on these Benches do not see as a fundamental threat to the British constitution. We shall, therefore, oppose the various proposals for these clauses to be removed, and support their retention in the Bill.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the erosion of power of the commanding officer is extremely worrying. I do not believe that it is right that it should be contained in a Bill of this nature, at this time. It is not right that we should be unable to discuss it in full. The noble and gallant Lord has not tabled any amendments: he has gone for the blanket policy of moving that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. He has given a perfectly good reason for doing so; indeed, it is a good method by which to discuss the problem.
Before the commencement of the debate this morning, I joined the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in taking a cup of coffee. He asked me about the time when I was in the Army. I had to confess to him that it was 50 years ago. However, the principles of discipline have not changed in that time. I do not believe that the powers or the constitutional position of a commanding officer should be changed in the way envisaged in Part 2 of the Bill. To that extent I have immense sympathy with, and agree with, what has been said by those two great experts, the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
However, we have had discussions with the Government through the usual channels and, with exceptions which we shall come to, we have given an undertaking that we shall support the Government in getting the Bill through at this time even though its provisions are not needed until the end of December.
I say to the noble and gallant Lord that I have total sympathy with, and totally agree with, all that he said. However, if he divides the Committee on this matter I regret that I shall be unable to recommend to my noble friends that they should support him.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I shall address all the clauses that he opposes—Clauses 2 to 16 inclusive—as I believe that he has made generic points which apply equally to all those clauses.
It is important to explain to the Committee that Part 2 has a very clear purpose. It is to strengthen and clarify the powers of the services in relation to aspects
1088
of the investigation of offences under the service discipline Acts. The intention behind the changes is to set out those powers in detail to avoid the doubt that currently prevails. I say to the noble and gallant Lord that the Explanatory Notes do not state that the clauses are driven by the ECHR. They make clear that the change is wanted and would result in a reduction in the risk of successful challenge under the ECHR.
As regards the point that the noble and gallant Lord made on the prerogative issue, we do not consider that the changes raise wider issues about the prerogative generally. They are focused on a narrow area; that is, the powers of search of persons and personal accommodation in investigating offences. Commanding officers need greater clarity as regards where they stand. It is undeniable that for some time there has been concern among the services that the powers of search of commanding officers and of service police are not clear enough. The wish for clearer powers predates concerns about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in setting out the powers in legislation it makes sense to take account of the powers of the ECHR, to make them clear and to enable us to have a measure which is sufficiently robust to withstand legal challenge.
Therefore, concerns about the convention are not the reason for, or the trigger behind, Part 2 as the service police have wanted clear powers of search for some time. Indeed, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 already contains powers for most of its provisions on powers of search to be applied to the service police.
However, to have used the powers of the 1984 Act to apply these provisions by secondary legislation would not have protected the position of the Armed Forces and the position of the commanding officer in the way that we considered necessary. A key element of Part 2 is that it reserves certain powers for use by the commanding officer in, for example, enabling him or her to authorise searches of accommodation without a warrant. It would not have been possible to achieve this essential safeguard using the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as they are simply not wide enough. The Committee must consider that it would be unfortunate if we had no alternative other than invoking the powers of the 1984 Act. I am afraid that the effect of that would be the exact opposite of what is sought by the noble and gallant Lord in that commanding officers would have no reserve powers in these matters. That is not what the noble and gallant Lord would wish to see.
One of the main concerns of the services, in particular the service police, in seeking the introduction of provisions such as these is that the current absence of clear powers and procedures increases the risk of successful challenge against the admissibility in a subsequent trial of evidence seized. Evidence may be excluded from a court martial at the discretion of a judge advocate if he or she believes that it is in the interests of fairness. That power does not derive from the European Convention on Human Rights. It has always existed under the common law and under the service discipline Acts. The introduction

1089
in Part 2 of search warrants, for example, will leave evidence obtained as a result of searches less vulnerable to successful legal challenge.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is concerned in particular about Clause 8, which provides for a judicial officer to review any evidence obtained during a search conducted without a warrant but on the authorisation of a commanding officer. The reason for that is to ensure that such evidence should be less vulnerable to a successful challenge at a subsequent court martial because it has already been examined by a judicial officer.
It is worth emphasising that the provisions in Part 2 have nothing to do with any searches other than ones carried out as part of the investigation of an offence. They do not, therefore, apply to searches and inspections undertaken as part of normal barracks discipline or for health and safety reasons. Moreover, the restrictions in Part 2 on searching premises apply only to the personal accommodation of persons subject to service law. Any searches of other parts of service property remain entirely a matter for the commanding officer. It is important to understand that the scope of Part 2 is limited in that respect.
I should also restate the Government's position in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Armed Forces, as this is clearly an issue which troubles the noble and gallant Lord and some of his noble and gallant colleagues. The remarks made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during the passage of the Human Rights Act that,
"the Convention poses no threat to the effectiveness of the armed forces"
were mentioned at Second Reading by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The noble and gallant Lord went on to assert that this Bill, in its present form,
"makes a travesty of that assurance".
I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with that remark of the noble and gallant Lord. Even if these changes were being made primarily because of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act, it would be quite wrong to suggest that they threaten the effectiveness of the Armed Forces, any more than the Armed Forces Discipline Act has done.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, spoke about this issue to the Select Committee examining the Bill in another place. Of the changes in the Armed Forces Discipline Act, he said that,
"there is nothing to indicate that they are affecting operational effectiveness".
As an aside I was interested to read the comments of Mr Robert Key—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, will be interested in the comments of the honourable Member for Salisbury in another place—on his visit to the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester as a member of the Select Committee on the present Bill. I am sure that we all remember that Mr Key was a formidable opponent of the Armed
1090
Forces Discipline Act when it was going through Parliament last year. But he found, according to his article in Defence Review, that,
"the curtailment of summary discipline and the introduction of a right of appeal in last year's Armed Forces Discipline Act has led to a fall in the number of inmates consumed with poisonous simmering resentment following pedantic, harsh or unreasonable summary sentences".
Those comments are worth noting given the vociferousness of the honourable member on that point. The comments offer an interesting insight. A corollary of fairer procedures is not necessarily a weakening of the system of discipline. Fairer procedures strengthen the system by increasing respect for it.
However, I must return to Sir Michael Royce's evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. Asked about the changes proposed in Part 2, he commented,
"some of the powers which are being given to our Service police in terms of search will also be helpful to smooth the way in which discipline is conducted. On the whole, I think if it will have any impact at all, it should be a beneficial impact".
So it was not just that he was denying that there was anything negative: he was saying that there may indeed be something positive.
I find it difficult to reconcile these informed observations with concerns that Part 2 of the Bill represents a threat to operational effectiveness. The Government's commitment to the maintenance of operational effectiveness is an unqualified commitment. I gave that commitment at Second Reading and I have done so on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box. We do not merely pay lip service to the importance of the special circumstances of service life—those special circumstances that noble Lords who have served in the service often draw rightly to our attention. In developing our proposals for legislation, we are guided by those who have current hands-on experience of those circumstances. This is reflected in Part 2 of the Bill. It provides a clear structure for powers of search, as the services wish. At the same time, it fully recognises the realities of service life by. reserving very important powers to the commanding officer.
Perhaps I may refer again to Sir Michael Boyce's evidence to the Select Committee. He said:
"As I have said in other committees and in other places as well, operational effectiveness is my benchmark and my line in the sand, and I can assure you that if operational effectiveness were being affected by anything, I would make that perfectly clear".
That is an unequivocal statement on which I am sure all your Lordships would place considerable emphasis.
Part 2 of the Bill is of considerable importance to the services in contributing to the establishment of a proper regime for the investigation of offences. It represents a balanced and responsible approach to the issue. On the other hand, the removal of Part 2 would just leave the services in an arguably worse position than they are in today. By means of the Bill, we shall have highlighted the deficiencies and uncertainties of the present procedures but the loss of Clauses 2 to 16 would remove the remedy that we propose. I do not consider that that is a responsible line of action, least

1091
of all if it were to be on the basis of some misconceptions which I am afraid have been advanced against Part 2 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley: First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The Minister has advanced a number of cogent points. If one had more time one would like to consider them; but one cannot do that.
I was happy with much of what the noble Baroness said. However, I was unhappy about the Royal prerogative issue. I think that your Lordships may want to return to that discussion at another time and in another place. I do not oppose that Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 29 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Extension of jurisdiction]:
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 29, line 30, leave out "is amended" and insert "may be amended by Order in Council approved by both Houses of Parliament to confer extended jurisdiction as an emergency measure for limited jurisdiction"
The noble Lord said: When times were different—that is to say, before Wandsworth—we tabled a raft of amendments on Part 4 of the Bill. It has some good things in it but we were generally unhappy. However, I understand that the Government will agree to withdraw Part 4 of the Bill—Clauses 31 and 32 and Schedule 5—and will not press that they stand part of the Bill. If the Minister can give me that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment and all the other amendments which relate to Part 4. I am sure that she will give that assurance—but if not, après nous le déluge.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that the Government will not seek to insist on the retention of Clauses 31 and 32, and Schedule 5. We remain of the view that this is a lost opportunity to make a number of beneficial changes concerning the Ministry of Defence Police. I understand that some members of the Conservative Party in another place took a similar view. However, now is neither the time nor the place to detain the Committee on detailed arguments on this.
1092
As the noble Lord indicated, I have given my agreement to the wish that he expressed: that Clauses 31 and 32 and Schedule 5 do not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendments standing in my name on Part 4 and Schedule 5.
Lord Burnham: I thank the Minister for those remarks. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the merits or demerits of Part 4. As she is a marvel, I simply say:
"Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime".
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 31 negatived.
Clause 32 negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Amendments relating to Ministry of Defence Police]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 not moved.]
Schedule 5 negatived.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 36, line 31, leave out from "Act" to "exercisable" in line 32 and insert "is"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 to 33. As a result of Part 4 not standing part of the Bill, all provisions in other clauses and schedules consequential on Part 4 need to be removed. These are straightforward amendments designed to achieve just that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 36, line 33, at end insert—
"() an order under section 8(2),".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Short title and commencement]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 37, line 41, leave out "to (s)" and insert "and (4)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 32:
Page 38, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
Page 38, line 25, leave out "or (5)".
Page 38. line 27, leave out "or (5)".
Page 38, line 28, leave out from "State" to "to" in line 29.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 92. lease out lines 24 and 25.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
1.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Special provision for roll-overs]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 5, leave out "(assuming it to be exercisable at that time)"
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Comments received from practitioners experienced in employee share arrangements have led us to propose an amendment to guard against a mischievous interpretation.
At issue is whether an option is to be taken as being exercisable on the key date of 7th November 2000. The situation could arise, for example, whereby an option had not yet vested on that date. It could be argued that, because the option was not capable of exercise on 7th November 2000, a nil charge should arise under Clause 2. However. that is clearly not the intention of the legislation. We are providing a way for companies to settle their secondary national insurance contribution liabilities on all options granted between the dates set out in Clause 1.
The simplest way in which to amend the legislation is to omit the specific reference at Clause 3(4)(b)(ii), which is the intention behind Amendment No. 1, and to add an overall provision in the interpretation clause (Clause 5), as sought in Amendment No. 3, to apply to the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: As always, I am lost in admiration for the versatility of the noble Lord. Only a moment or two ago he was dealing with problems of tourism (I only regret his failure to refer to my former constituency of Worthing in that context); now he is dealing with the highly complex matter of social security and share options. As I understood him to say, the purpose of the amendment is to prevent mischievous interpretation—no doubt a term of art in your Lordships' House, although I must confess that I have not come across it previously in my earlier experience.
This is the third attempt to get this legislation right. I recounted at Second Reading the history of the way in which it had been dealt with both in the child support, pensions and social security debates and in the Finance Act 2000 debates. I am sure that it is important to get these provisions right. We are seeking to get the technical aspects of the Bill in order; that we are in favour of doing so was apparent earlier.
To put the matter into context, overall it arises from the imposition of yet another stealth tax. In the mail this morning I received a rather interesting analysis based purely on the Government's Red Books, and so on, which showed that there had been some 45 stealth taxes and that, over the life of the Parliament, in the region of £360 billion has been collected in such taxes. However, we certainly welcome this provision because it is designed to ameliorate the effect of the fundamental approach so far as concerns national insurance contributions and share options.
We still have doubts about the legislation because we believe that it penalises employers who wish to use share options as incentives. In addition, we believe that on the part of those involved there is still an element of gambling as to whether they should accept the Government's option of taking a tax hit straight away or whether they should wait to see what happens to their share prices.
None the less, our overall attitude towards the Bill is favourable. Subject to what we may say in a little while with regard to other amendments, I believe that it is right that we accept this amendment. Given the unbelievable complexity of the measure, it is important that we have no doubts as to how something may be interpreted by the Government on the one hand and by taxpayers on the other. Therefore, we are certainly very happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I also support the amendment. This is an extraordinarily complex Bill that takes up eight full pages and deals with a point where the concept is quite simple. I agree entirely that a problem was created by the rapid rise of the dot.com shares and their subsequent, more or less equally rapid, fall. That problem is dealt with appropriately by this Bill.

1095
I am not sure whether to describe the Bill as a masterpiece of parliamentary drafting or as a tribute to the ability of the legal profession to make matters so confusing that an extremely lengthy Bill is needed in order to deal with all the possible arguments that may be raised by learned counsel. However, it seems to be right. On Second Reading I raised certain questions about the timing at which companies had to elect, but I did not think it fit in the circumstances 'to press the matter further by tabling an amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for even the modified rapture of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is, yes to both of his questions—the provision is both a masterpiece of drafting and a tribute to the cunning and complexity of the minds of the legal profession.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 3, and insert the following new clause—
"SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROLL-OVERS
(1) In this section—

(a) an "original right" is a right to acquire shares in a body corporate granted after 5th April 1999 and before 20th May 2000;

(b) a "replacement right" is a right to acquire shares in that or any other body corporate granted or acquired in consideration of the assignment or release of an original right (whether comprising all or part of the consideration for that assignment or release);

(c) a "parity exchange" occurs on the grant or acquisition of a replacement right where the gain which could reasonably be expected to be made on the exercise of that right immediately after the grant or acquisition of that right (on the assumption, if necessary, that that right was capable of being exercised at that time), together with the value of any other consideration given for the assignment or release of the original right, is not manifestly greater than the gain which could reasonably be expected to have been made on the exercise of the original right immediately prior to the assignment or release of that right (on the assumption, if necessary, that the original right had been capable of being exercised at that time);

(d) an "enhanced exchange" occurs on the grant or acquisition of a replacement right where a parity exchange does not occur; and

(e) the gain which might be reasonably expected to be made on the exercise of a right to acquire shares shall be determined in accordance with section 135(3)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1).

(2) On a parity exchange—

(a) any notices made, or deemed to have been made, under this Act in respect of the original right shall be deemed to have been made in respect of, and shall have the same effect in relation to, the replacement right and any other consideration given for the assignment or release of the original right; and

(b) any special contribution paid, or deemed to have been paid, under this Act in respect of the original right shall be deemed to have been paid in respect of, and shall have the same effect in relation to, the replacement right and any other consideration given for the assignment or release of the original right.

1096

(3) On an enhanced exchange the consideration given for the assignment or release of the original right shall be apportioned on a just and equitable basis into two parts, the first of which representing all of those terms of the replacement right and of the other consideration. if any, given for the assignment or release of the original right which could have been granted, required or given so as to give rise to a parity exchange (to which part subsection (2) above shall apply) and the second of which representing the remaining terms of the replacement right, and of the other consideration, if any, given for the assignment or release of the original right (to which part the provisions of this Act shall not apply).

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, on any partial exercise, assignment or release of the replacement right any gain arising shall be treated as comprised in the second part in priority to the first part.

(5) Where a replacement right to which the foregoing provisions of this section apply is assigned or released for a consideration which comprises or includes a subsequent replacement right, the first mentioned replacement right shall he treated as if it were an original right, and the subsequent replacement right shall be treated if it were a replacement right within the meaning of subsection (1)(b) above, and subsections (2) and (3) above shall apply accordingly on the assignment or release in question.

(6) In subsection (4) above, references to a subsequent replacement right are references to any right to acquire shares in a body corporate which are or have been obtained by any person as, or as part of, the consideration for the assignment or release by him of a replacement right or of a subsequent replacement right.

(7) Where prior to the coming into force of this Act payments have been made in respect of Class 1 contributions due on the exercise of any replacement right, then on a claim being made by the person who paid them all such repayments of those contributions shall be made, less any amount representing the special contributions which would be due under section 2 above."

The noble Lord said: This amendment is also a masterpiece of drafting, for which I can take very little credit. It contains special provisions for roll-overs of share options. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the debates in another place were very heavily programmed and the discussion on this issue was rather limited.
There is a particular disadvantage in this context, in view of the extent to which the courts can, as a result of Pepper v Hart, take into account the travaux préparatoires of any Bill. I doubt whether there is any case in which it would have been more helpful to have had an extended view of the Government's approach than in relation to this Bill.
The Bill completed its Report stage and Third Reading in another place on 8th February. My honourable friend Mr Howard Flight rightly raised this issue and was doubtful about whether the clause's drafting was as simple or clear as it might be. In reply, the Minister assured him that that was so.
Following that exchange, further correspondence has ensued between the Government and the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which was kind enough to send me a copy of the correspondence. It expressed severe doubts about the Bill's current provisions, which are helpfully described in the Explanatory Notes, which were updated between the Bill's consideration in another place and its arrival in this House. The institute said that it was very doubtful about whether people generally would be able to apply the provisions—they will have to rely to a large extent

1097
on the interpretation by the Revenue of the way in which the Bill will be applied. It felt that the drafting was so complicated that even professional tax operators would have difficulty understanding the Bill's provisions. It suggested—I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—that while it was not in favour of legislation by tax bulletin, it is important for the Government to set out clearly and with examples how they believe the provisions and the Bill in general will operate.
Considerable concerns remain in this context. Amendment No. 2 was an attempt, with outside bodies, to try to produce provisions that might be a little simpler than the current drafting of Clause 3. I sincerely thank the Minister for arranging for me to have a meeting with him and his officials, who were extremely helpful in explaining the various points at issue.
One might regard the amendment as a probing amendment—if so, it probably holds the world record for being the most complicated probing amendment ever thought up! I know that the Minister has some doubts about it but I hope that he will view it in the context of the Bill. He might also give us some idea of how many people he thinks may need to know what the legislation means and how it should operate. In some respects there do not appear to be many problems with options that are rolled over at parity, although the Bill's wording is still pretty complicated. However, there are additional problems and even greater complexities when the options that are rolled over are not at parity. I tabled the amendment in the spirit of hoping to improve the Bill, which, despite the overall context, we certainly welcome. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me be the first to acknowledge that Clause 3 is extremely complex and that the noble Lord's proposed replacement is somewhat simpler. However, I am afraid there is no way round the Bill's complexity because it has to cover a wide range of situations in which one option is replaced by another, or "rolled over", as the jargon has it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reference to the meeting that we had last week—it was a helpful meeting at which we discussed his concerns about the clause. I explained to him that the Government are anxious to see whether anything could be done to simplify the provisions while retaining the policy aims of having consistency and fairness in the national insurance charge. Before and after that meeting, the Inland Revenue looked very carefully at the effects of the amendment and tested it against a variety of scenarios. The results are set out in a table in the letter that was sent to the noble Lord and to Mr Benson, who was acting on this occasion on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. That analysis showed that although the amendment is worthy in its aim of seeking to simplify the clause, it unfortunately fails to achieve the desired result. It would also allow fewer options to be settled than the Bill's current drafting.
1098
Let me give an example to show why the amendment would not work. Clause 3 will ensure that a national insurance charge will not arise provided that the option is rolled over at parity—that is, the consideration given for the option at each roll-over is not greater than the inherent gain in the old option at the time of the roll-over. Any excess over parity should be subject to Class 1 national insurance contributions. That parity rule must apply at the stage of each roll-over. The Inland Revenue found that the amendment fails effectively to achieve that in multiple roll-over situations. The result would be that the amount of national insurance contributions paid in multiple roll-over cases would be higher than was intended when the share price was falling and higher when it was rising. Rather than relieving all of the circumstances in which the clause is intended to apply, it would result in an unfair approximation for the purposes of the Bill.
The clause as it stands achieves its aim and we cannot guarantee that re-working the amendment—we also considered that as an alternative—would give us anything less complex in the end.
I was asked whether we would set out guidance to help those who would be affected by this part of the Bill. We shall make available detailed guidance on the provisions for the few companies that will require it. I shall come to the number in a minute. We are grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for its offer of assistance in drawing up the guidance. We shall take advantage of that offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked how many people might be affected by Clause 3. The number is very small. The total number of options that come under the ambit of the Bill is not more than 2,000, affecting perhaps 50,000 people. We estimate that the number of options on which the provisions of the Bill might be taken up will be no more than 1.300, affecting 30,000 people. A much smaller proportion of those will be rolled over—I should be astonished if it were more than 10 per cent. The proportion affected by multiple roll-over will be even smaller. The number of people who will take advantage of the roll-over provisions in Clause 3 will probably be smaller still. We are talking about tens, or, at the most, hundreds of schemes affecting hundreds, or, at the most, single-figure thousands of people.
We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are fair. I am sorry that the gallant attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to make them simple as well is not acceptable.
Lord Higgins: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It is depressing for practitioners in the field that they will have a smaller market than one might have supposed. I am grateful to Minister for his suggestion that there will be adequate briefing for those who are affected by the measure.
The Minister's most convincing line of argument was, if I understood him correctly, that my amendment would involve more tax being raised from

1099
those involved. It may have occurred to some people recently that the Conservatives are not in favour of increasing taxation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should be the last person to accuse the noble Lord of trying to introduce a stealth tax. It is not a phrase that I care for.
Lord Higgins: I shall leave that on one side. It would be inappropriate for me to press an amendment that would increase taxation and it would make me rather unpopular in my party. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
"() Where any assumption that a right has been exercised at any time is made for the purposes of any provision of this Act, that assumption shall be taken to include the assumption that that right was capable of being exercised at that time."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 34, leave out "this section" and insert "the provisions of this Act"
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I must burden the Committee with a minor amendment that relates to the way in which the legislation will operate.
When we were looking at the regulations that will be needed to bring the notification procedures into force, we noticed that, as presently drafted, only Clause 5 would be treated as if it were contained within Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That was an oversight. We need a change of words so that the whole Bill can be brought within the ambit of Part I of that Act. Without the amendment, we could not use the existing administrative procedures contained in that Act to introduce the regulations to be made under the Bill. The amendment will correct that. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: As Parliament has been struggling since May 1999 to get the legislation right, we must hope that this final amendment succeeds in that objective. We shall not oppose it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Finance Bill
1.27 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May):
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is good to be able to speak to this Bill at a time when the fundamentals of our economy are stronger than they have been for a generation. As a result of our reformed monetary framework, tough fiscal rules and prudent choices, we now have inflation at its lowest for 30 years and the lowest in the European Union; long-term interest rates at their lowest level for 35 years; the highest business investment for 40 years, at more than 14 per cent of GDP; and the lowest unemployment since 1975, with more people in work than ever before—over 1.1 million more than in 1997.
We have sound public finances, having cut free of the millstone of debt run up by the Conservatives. Where this Government inherited a £28 billion deficit and debt at an unsustainable 44 per cent of national income, we have made the biggest ever net cash debt repayment in one year by a British Government, at £34 billion, and we have reduced the net debt to below 32 per cent of national income.
As we have cut debt, cut unemployment and achieved higher growth and earnings, we are freeing up resources for priority areas in a sustainable way. The fall in debt charges alone has freed up £7 billion for next year compared with four years ago. The fall in spending on unemployment benefit has freed up another £4 billion. We can plan ahead, investing for the long term in the nation's priorities—education, health, fighting crime and investing in transport and science. Those are priorities on which our future prosperity depends.
The Bill builds on that strength and continues to deliver on our promises. The Chancellor's Budget makes a clear choice about Britain's future. It sets out a platform on which to build opportunity and prosperity for all. Like the Budget, the Bill takes a balanced approach, with stability as its foundation.
Our hard-won economic stability enables us to start to deal with decades of under-investment in public services, skills and infrastructure. That stability is the basis for the success of Britain's businesses and a better deal for pensioners, children and families. Maintaining and locking in that stability for the long term is at the heart of the Bill. This is a Bill for families, a Bill for children and a Bill to tackle poverty.

1101
We have made a clear choice to take account of the costs of children through the tax and benefits system, to help every child make the best start in life. It is a matter of choice that we have increased child benefit to £15.50—a rise in real terms of 26 per cent.
Clause 52 introduces the children's tax credit of up to £l0 a week, equivalent to a cut of 2.5p in income tax for those families. From next year, in the year of a child's birth, families will receive £20 a week. Families which received just £11.05 a week under the last government will receive £25.50 per week. We are increasing maternity pay to £100 by 2003 and will increase the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks, as well as introducing two weeks' paternity leave for new fathers.
The Bill also takes further steps to make work pay for all. Twenty-five million taxpayers will gain from the widening of the lower 10p tax rate in Clause 51, at a cost of £1 billion. Now, more of their income will be taxed at that lower rate rather than at 22p.
We have put up the working families tax credit by £5 and announced an increase in the minimum wage. The two together mean that the guaranteed minimum income for families with children and someone in full-time work will rise to £225 per week. That will make a real difference to families on modest incomes.
To make sure pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation, we are increasing pensions above inflation and above earnings by £5 per week to £72.50 for single pensioners and £8 per week to £115.90 for couples, with a further rise of £3 and £4.80 next year.
As a result of the measures that we are introducing this year alone, households will, on average, be £240 a year better off. Families with children will, on average, be £420 a year better off and 2 million of the poorest pensioners at least £800 a year better off. Living standards for a typical family have risen 10 per cent since the general election, with particular help to the poorest and those who need it most. That is the measure of our commitment to building not only a strong economy, but a fair society—one that is making every one better off.
To create long-term rising prosperity in Britain we must build the best possible environment for business to flourish and productivity to rise. Our ambition is to achieve a faster rise in productivity than our main competitors over the next decade. We want successful companies in all sectors to invest and expand. We have already created a more favourable company tax environment with the lowest corporation tax rate ever in Britain and overall the lowest rate of any major industrialised country. We have reduced the long-term capital gains tax rate on business assets to 10 per cent.
Recent evidence has been encouraging. In the past year the economy has grown at 3 per cent and manufacturing productivity by 5.6 per cent. Business investment grew by 2.4 per cent last year and we are now investing at over 14 per cent of GDP, the highest level in 40 years. But we still have some way to go. So we have proposed further reforms to promote competition, investment, innovation and entrepreneurship.
1102
We will promote long-term investment and protect investors by taking forward Paul Myners' recommendations in his Review of Institutional Investment, including abolishing the minimum funding requirement, and we will make it easier for institutions to invest in venture capital through tax and regulatory reform. We are building a competitive and modern tax system for large firms, with changes to double taxation relief in Clause 79, and the abolition of tax on most payments between companies within the UK in Clauses 83 to 85.
We are consulting in detail on relieving tax when companies sell substantial shareholdings. Since 1997 enhanced capital allowances and new tax credits to encourage research and innovation have already saved business over £1 billion. Increasing research and development by large companies can have a big impact on the UK's long-term productivity, so we are consulting on how best to extend the R&D tax credit to larger firms.
This Bill will also improve the environment for small and medium sized enterprises. Clause 62 doubles the value of share options which can benefit from tax relief through enterprise management incentives to £3 million. Clause 61 extends the right to benefit from this relief to all employees.
Alongside the measures introduced in this Bill, we are reducing the burden of tax and regulation on small firms, with a package of measures to cut the VAT administration burden—of which I have often spoken to your Lordships from bitter experience. We are simplifying small business corporation tax by making companies' annual accounts the basis for calculating tax, cutting at a stroke the need for a whole parallel paper-chase.
This Bill will make the tax system more responsive to specific needs to benefit businesses, communities, and people throughout Britain. In particular it will help to ensure that those areas of Britain which have been left behind by rising prosperity are able to catch up, with a package of six tax cuts totalling £ l over five years, targeted on enterprise in our poorest areas.
We are giving a boost to the British film industry by extending tax relief for British films for a further three years in Clause 72.
We are reforming betting duty.
In recognition of the importance of our national heritage, we are bringing in a scheme to help with the cost of repairs to listed churches and places of worship and making available refunds to national museums and galleries which allow the public free admission. We are initiating consultation on tax relief for community sports clubs.
On skills, we recognise that today's economy demands more workers with higher skills and qualifications to fit new jobs. But up to 30 per cent of all employees do not have basic level 2 qualifications. So as well as the extensions of New Deal and the provision of the training people on benefits need to move into work, we want to encourage companies and employees to upgrade their skills. So to back up the tax

1103
relief we already offer to employee training, we will consider a new tax credit to support training. And we are launching an independent study to enhance the supply of highly-skilled scientists and engineers.
Britain is already one of the best business environments in the world. The reforms we are making in this Bill will make the environment for all businesses better still, and we will continue to look at new ways to help Britain's companies raise their productivity.
Following on previous Budgets and the steps we have taken to tackle climate change, improve air quality, promote lower emission fuels and renewable energy and to regenerate run-down areas, this Finance Bill carries forward the Government's commitment to a sustainable environment.
Clauses 1 to 3 give effect to our cuts in fuel duties for ultra-low sulphur petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel, and enable the Government to provide reliefs for pilot projects developing more environmentally friendly fuels.
Clauses 8 to 14 increase to 1549cc the engine size below which the lower rate of car vehicle excise duty is paid, reforms VED for goods vehicles and implements the new exemption for tractors and agricultural machinery. Altogether, those are worth £1.6 billion a year to motorists—equivalent to a 4p per litre cut in fuel duty for motorists—and £660 million a year to the haulage industry—equivalent to a 7p per litre cut in fuel duty for hauliers, as well as promoting less environmentally damaging fuels and vehicles.
The introduction of the aggregates levy in Clauses 16 to 49 seeks to promote the use of recycled aggregates and other alternatives to primary aggregates, in a revenue neutral way, in order to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of quarrying such as damage to biodiversity, visual intrusion and nuisance to nearby communities. The money the levy raises will be returned to business and to local communities through a 0.1 percentage point cut in employers' national insurance and through the new Sustainability Fund, which will come into operation in April next year. As announced in the pre-Budget report, £35 million a year will be allocated to the fund and we shall consult further on the details of its operation.
The climate change levy and the landfill tax dealt with in Clauses 104 and 105 demonstrate our readiness to incentivise environmentally sustainable use of scarce resources. By bringing actual market costs more in line with real economic costs, economic instruments allow those involved in environmentally damaging activities to respond according to their own circumstances. Attaching a price to environmental detriment creates a permanent incentive for innovation and investment in less polluting methods of production, and encourages the consumption of "cleaner" products. And revenues from new environmental taxes are being used to cut the rate of national insurance, rather than to boost the income of the Exchequer. That is not only economically rational, but it is also environmentally responsible.
1104
The Bill sets out a clear choice for Britain's future. The platform of economic stability that this Government have built is the foundation for Britain's future prosperity. We have chosen to build on that stability. We have chosen more investment in our public services, not less, with schools and hospitals coming first, and we have chosen sensible tax cuts for hardworking families, and not a return to boom and bust.
As I said, this is a Finance Bill for families and children and one that tackles poverty and unemployment in our poorest communities. It is a Bill to help Britain's businesses grow; a Bill to carry forward stability as the basis for a strong economy and a strong society; and a way to deliver opportunity and prosperity for all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Newby, perhaps I may be allowed to take his place. I intend to speak briefly. The main problem demonstrated by this Budget is a refusal to face the fact that the tax changes introduced by the Government over their term of office have, to a large extent, been regressive rather than progressive. That has been due largely to the Government's refusal to recognise that income tax could and should be used effectively when taxes are needed. Undoubtedly income tax is the fairest of taxes. It is a simple tax, and it is understood by all. But the Government have stuck to their promises not to raise taxes at any level, which is entirely wrong.
The highest rate of tax in this country is 40 per cent. That rate affects people with earnings in the middle £30,000s and includes people who are in no sense rich. It includes people who are at senior levels in the teaching profession and, in some cases, at senior levels in the nursing profession. Once that level has been reached there is no further increase whatever in the rate of tax for those who have much larger incomes and who could afford to pay much more.
We propose that there should be a higher rate of tax at 50 per cent for those with incomes over £100,000. I believe that anyone would recognise that someone with an income of £100,000 is clearly well off and well into the higher levels of income. People in that category—many Members of your Lordships' House, including myself are among them—could afford to pay more in so far as their incomes exceed £100,000.
At the other end of the scale, we have always pointed out that a greater benefit to those with lower levels of income would be achieved by removing the 10 per cent rate and replacing it with a zero rate. Increasing the personal allowance would take more people out of the tax system altogether and would be more effective in helping those at the lower levels of the income scale than having a lower introductory rate. We believe that the Government's commitment at the previous election that they would not raise the rates of income tax was a serious error that has prevented them from using a most effective tool in making taxes more

1105
progressive. We hope, although we fear that it will not be the case, that the Government, in their manifesto, will not make a similar commitment in relation to what will happen if they are re-elected.
The second main criticism of the Budget is quite different. Once again we are faced with a Budget—this year containing exactly 300 pages—that achieves very little. As someone whose legal practice has included a certain amount of tax work, it has always seemed to me that broad simplicity is desirable, rather than fiddling with taxes—a little bit here and a little bit there—to achieve minor improvements.
It is clear that many matters like venture capital allowances or extra allowances for share options and so on are ineffective in economic terms. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing under a neutral tax scheme. If tax concessions are needed, it is doubtful whether that is an effective economic use of the money. We have far too many fiddly little bits and pieces when we should look for something a great deal simpler. Consider, for example, the tax avoidance schemes created by the business enterprise scheme introduced by the previous government. I believe that some of the schemes introduced by the present Government also lead, perhaps on a smaller scale, to that kind of problem.
A Budget of this kind is yet another example of the justification for splitting the Finance Act into two Acts: one for setting the rates and what needs to be done year-by-year on a regular basis, and one for dealing with the more technical aspects. I believe that this is a missed opportunity to simplify the tax system, or at least to avoid complicating it, and a missed opportunity to make our tax system more progressive than it is now.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I can speak in the gap to raise a similar point to that of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but from a different point of view.
We are in the fourteenth year of a top income tax rate of 40 per cent. I believe that that has been of inestimable value to this country. In European terms, it has made us a tax haven, something that is deeply resented by some other EU countries, particularly the socialist Government of France. I believe that this country owes a deep debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Lawson for introducing that in his 1988 Budget.
New Labour was elected on a self-denying ordinance not to dim that jewel in the Tory inheritance and it has stuck to that ordinance. However, so far the Chancellor has failed to indicate whether he will renew such a pledge in the manifesto. It is not on the pledge sheet. We shall be interested to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has succeeded in making a late change to the manifesto, or perhaps the manifesto already says what he wants.
I remind your Lordships that the last time a Labour government were in power, they left with a 98 per cent top marginal rate tax and that rate of tax came into effect at a threshold in today's prices of slightly over £78,000 a year.
1106
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained that the Liberal Party would like a much higher rate of tax and went on to refer to the 50 per cent rate. His party may be aiming to try to attract some of those voters who have been disappointed that new Labour has to some extent proved to be new Labour. However. I do not know whether the electoral arithmetic will be particularly attractive.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I am grateful for his remarks about me, but he pointed out that the pledge given at the previous general election has not so far been reiterated. I am sure that it will be. However, does he not agree that the doubt is highly undesirable and that until it is cleared up it is necessary that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are probed and pressed at every opportunity in order to make the position clear?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. The Government may believe that the presence or absence of such a pledge will make relatively little difference to the result of this general election. However, perhaps I may point out to them that if they do not renew that self-denying ordinance, they may, if re-elected, be tempted to return to the bad old days of bad old Labour and the absence of that pledge will have a considerable effect on the next election.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I begin by offering the apologies of my noble friend Lord Saatchi that he cannot be here today. I hope that your Lordships will not consider me too poor a substitute.
The Bill may not be as bulky as the Chancellor's efforts last year but none the less it is a very full Finance Bill. That is evident from the Minister's introduction. It runs to 300 pages in 111 clauses and 33 schedules. Despite that, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I do not propose to detain the House for long.
As the Minister pointed out, a large part of its content, the 34 clauses of Part II as well as seven schedules, is taken up with the aggregates levy. It seems to me that this is a classic example of the Chancellor's approach to taxation; an ill-formed proposition with generous dollops of tinkering, obfuscation and complication, all to no good effect. As my honourable friend Oliver Letwin commented in another place:
"It is a principle of taxation that it should be simple, cleat and transparent, but this measure is not simple, clear or transparent".
Moreover, as my honourable friend also observed:
"this tax is irrational and is being introduced in the wrong way. It has the wrong powers of enforcement and it will cost jobs. Even more than all that, though, it is an empty box. Almost everything that will bring it into effect will come in a series of regulations that the House will never seriously debate".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/4/01; cols. 86 and 71.]

1107
That should force us to contemplate how much more coherent the regime of the levy could have been had it been scrutinised in greater detail by your Lordships; that is to say, had my noble friend Lord Saatchi's House of Lords Financial Powers Bill been on the statute book.
That contention is all the more persuasive on the basis of some simple arithmetic. The Chancellor delivered his Budget speech on 7th March. Today is 10th May. The Government have had no difficulty in progressing the Finance Bill through another place within that timescale; within two months.
That provokes two conclusions. First, despite the earnest efforts of my honourable friends so to do, some doubt must attach to how effectively it has been scrutinised. This argues fiercely in favour of your Lordships being afforded a proper bite at the cherry. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, there can no longer be any justification whatever in the future for offering up the Finance Bill for debate in this House in the moribund backwaters of parliamentary time.
As your Lordships will be only too well aware, both those ambitions lie at the heart of my noble friend's Bill. Indeed, I emphasise that we on these Benches intend to pursue this strenuously not on our own behalf but in the interests of strengthening Parliament and of giving taxpayers a fairer deal than the somewhat shabby offering of stealth taxes amounting to £36 billion over the life of this Parliament that they have at the moment.
No doubt we shall have the opportunity to put my noble friend's proposition on to the statute book in the future. In the meantime, I take this opportunity to hark back briefly to the historical approach of this House; that is, to make a few general observations about the state of the economy. The Government are adept at crowing about their management of the country's finances. The Minister waxed lyrical yet again today. Sound-bite mantras drip effortlessly from the tongue to explain the miracle of Labour's conversion to economic competence— no more boom and bust and the like.
A particular assertion—and the noble Lord made it again today—is the Chancellor's claim to have repaid £34 billion-worth of debt. And yet, according to the Treasury's own figures, no sooner has this debt been repaid than the Chancellor avers his intention to borrow exactly the same sum; £34 billion.
It seems to me that there is another curious coincidence here; namely, that the current debt of British Telecom all but matches that £34 billion. Why is that significant? Because of the £22.5 billion which the Chancellor raked in from the auction of 3G spectrum. In effect, a large proportion of the debt repaid, far from emanating from the fruits of sound economic policy, is derived from what, in terms albeit also with hindsight, was little more than an unwarranted windfall tax.
I do not gainsay the proposition that the UK economy is reasonably well placed to weather the storm of the current global slow-down, but it is not
1108
wholly insulated from it. And it is perhaps too easy to be cynical. None the less, the timing of the election is fortuitous. The kind of economic picture we could be looking at after the election—some of the signs are perhaps there in the shape of Llanwern and Bathgate and last month's figures for industrial production as a whole being 0.1 per cent lower than a year ago—puts the skids under the Chancellor's apparent confidence. After all, data emerging from the United States recently suggest that its economy is still running at a very real risk of recession.
I simply suggest therefore that a suitable epitaph for this Government's management of our economy is to be found in the words of my noble friend Lord Saatchi:
"No wonder he [the Chancellor] put VAT on spectacles: it was so nobody could see what was actually going on!"—[Official Report, 14/3/01; col. 913.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what noble Lords said. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on his impromptu assumption of the role of Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party. By reminding us of his party's promises at the previous election he has laid himself open to rebuttals. It is true that his party said that there should be an increase in the rate of income tax for better-off people. But he may or may not remember that at the same time his party indicated that there would be increased expenditure on schools, hospitals and public investment generally using the benefit of those higher rates of income tax.
What he may not have recognised, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has been keeping in touch on a day-to-day basis, is that our actual improvements in expenditure in public investment have been far higher than those promised by the Liberal Democrat Party in its manifesto at the previous election, despite the fact that we have not increased rates of income tax.
Lord Newby: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for being slightly delayed. Had the Liberal Democrats been able to implement their policy after the previous election and raised the additional income from increased taxation during the first two years of the Parliament it would have been possible to increase expenditure on health and education in years one and two, which this Government found themselves unable to do, and we would still have had the benefits of growth to put more expenditure into those subjects in years three and four. I therefore believe that his example of our tax policy is at best partial.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very interested to see how that works out in the manifesto of the Liberal Democrat Party. We shall see what kinds of promises it makes on taxation and spending.
I am rather more interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that our tax policy is regressive rather than progressive and that more of the improvements in the economy, which I believe he acknowledged, should have been based on income tax rather than other taxation. I believe that when the

1109
noble Lord looks at the outcomes of the past four years he should consider the changes which have taken place in the incomes of hard-working families. Living standards have risen by 10 per cent over the life of this Parliament. The measures taken this year alone will make the average household £240 a year better off, and the average household is nearly £600 a year better off as a result of the measures introduced in this Parliament. The point here, surely, is that this Bill and the policies of the Government over the past four years have given additional support to those who need it most.
Every child should have the best possible start in life and that is why we have concentrated on ending child poverty. The changes in the Budget, plus the children's tax credit and the extra £10 a week in the year in which a child is born, will help to lift 170,000 children out of poverty. During this Parliament the reforms we have made will lift a total of 1.2 million children out of poverty and will mean that the average household with children is £1,000 a year better off.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while undoubtedly growth has had the effect of increasing the incomes of lower earners, as a group those on the lower deciles of the scale pay a higher proportion of the total tax burden than previously?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must take into account not only the tax system but the credit system and the net effect on those with lower incomes. I believe that the figures that I have given are incontrovertible. If one takes that wider view, there can be no doubt that the answer to the charge that taxation policy has been regressive is to be found in the figures that have given. If one looks at the net results of the Government's taxation and benefit policy over the past four years, there can be no doubt that those in our society who were worse off are now substantially better off. That deliberate policy has been successfully pursued by the Chancellor over the four-year period.
The noble Lord went on to make a point, which is always made on these occasions, about the complexity of the Finance Bill. I acknowledge that this is a complex Finance Bill. It is not as long as some others. The Bill has been produced rather more rapidly than some others, for reasons that are well known and are common to all governments that announce elections before the end of a full five-year term. In those circumstances, it has been necessary to programme the Bill in another place.
We have continued to rely on the constitutional conventions regarding the role of this House in taxation which go back much further than the Parliament Act 1911. Those conventions go back even further than the resolutions of the House of Commons in 1670s; they date virtually from a medieval division of powers, and long may that continue. It is entirely right that a largely unelected Chamber should have no power of taxation.
1110
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raises a legitimate point about complexity, but unless he is prepared to say which parts of the complex Finance Bill he is willing to sacrifice it is not easy to support him in his aim. The most serious charge levelled against the Bill in another place this week was that it was intensely boring. If possible, all Finance Bills should be boring rather than threatening.
I was interested in the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Lawson. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, would be the last person to expect me to anticipate the Labour Party's manifesto. Fortunately, the Conservative Party's manifesto became available this morning. But both noble Lords will have to consume their souls in patience until they see what commitments are made.
I was particularly interested in the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about the aggregates levy in relation to scrutiny by the House of Lords. I am not quite sure how the House of Lords can exercise greater scrutiny, or show greater expertise, unless he believes that a very significant number of Members of your Lordships' House own quarries. I am not certain that that is a particularly good qualification for considering the aggregates levy. This is part of our multi-faceted approach to environmental sustainability, and it is proper that the elected Chamber should consider it and make decisions upon it.
I turn to the claim of the noble Earl about soundbite mantras. I referred earlier to the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s; the stability of interest rates and their lowest level for 35 years; the highest level of business investment in 40 years; the lowest unemployment level since the 1970s, with youth unemployment cut by 80 per cent and more people in work than ever before. They might be soundbites, or even mantras, but they are a fairly effective justification for the economic policies of this Government. The final expression of those policies in this Parliament is the Finance Bill which I commend to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
2.9 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill
2.10 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on 9th May and printed pursuant to Standing Order 50, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Rural White Paper Our Countryside: the future, which we published last November, sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy for rural communities and the countryside. We have already pushed ahead with many of the initiatives and measures in the White Paper.
The Bill contains two important measures that are part of implementing our strategy: first, to assist farm diversification; and, secondly, to help maintain village services. These are now all the more important, as they will also help with the longer term effects of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
The Prime Minister launched the Action Plan for Farming on 30th March last year. That promised measures to help farmers diversify into nonagricultural businesses as a way of supporting or supplementing their agricultural activities. One way of doing that is through relief from business rates.
Last August we consulted on rate relief for farmers who diversified into horse enterprises. The response to that consultation made clear that there was a far wider range of potential diversification businesses. We therefore consulted again last November on proposals for rate relief for all types of farm diversification. These would have limited rate relief to farmers for newly established enterprises. We listened to the response to that consultation. The Bill reflects the resulting changes to the proposal. It will provide rate relief to all small properties which were previously in agricultural use, whoever occupies them, whether it be a farmer owner-occupier, a tenant farmer, or a third party.
The Bill introduces a rate relief scheme for new, small-scale farm diversification enterprises. It allows rate relief to all small properties occupied by any enterprise which is newly established in former agricultural premises. That includes those run by tenant farmers and those where the farmer lets or sells the property to a third party. Farms are already fully exempt from non-domestic rates. But as soon as any part of a farm is used for anything other than agriculture, it becomes liable for rates. For example, when a barn is converted to a shop or to livery stables it becomes rateable.
These types of activity can provide a useful supplement to a farmer's income. But the costs of using part of their farm in that way are increased by the additional rates bill on property that was previously rate free. That is seen as a major disincentive to diversification. To help farmers establish new
1112
diversification enterprises, the Bill would provide rate relief to reduce the costs of doing so. Relief would be available to any small rateable property that previously benefited from the agricultural exemption from rates.
Relief would be on similar terms to that which already applies for village shops. There would be a 50 per cent mandatory relief and local authorities would have the discretion to increase that to 100 per cent. It would be limited to properties below a certain rateable value, set by order, which we intend to set initially at £6,000. It would be reviewed at subsequent national revaluations to ensure that it keeps in line with any general changes in rateable values. For a property of the maximum size, 50 per cent relief would be worth £1,290 in this financial year and 100 per cent relief would be worth £2,580.
The scheme would be available initially for five years. It would then be reviewed and extended if necessary. The review would need to take into account the possible availability of rate relief to all small businesses, as proposed in the Green Paper on local government issued last year.
If the farm diversification scheme is extended, relief would only be available to any individual property for a maximum of five years from when it first received the relief. That is because the relief is intended to help farmers establish new diversification businesses, rather than provide long-term subsidy.
A rating concession is already given to stud farms that are on agricultural land. These currently receive a flat-rate reduction in their rateable value of £2,500, which is worth £1,075 in this financial year for all stud farms. For the smallest stud farms it amounts to a complete exemption from rates. Because of that existing concession, which is not time limited, new stud farms that qualify for it would not also receive the new farm diversification relief. However, when the farm diversification relief comes into effect we will raise the stud farms concession to a £3,000 reduction in rateable value. That would be worth £1,290 in 2001–2002, which is the same as the maximum mandatory relief under the farm diversification scheme. For most stud farms it would therefore be worth more than the mandatory farm diversification relief.
For those with gross rateable values below £6,000, the £1,290 stud farms concession would be more than 50 per cent of their rates bill. It would be worth the same to those with gross rateable values of exactly £6,000. It would also be available to stud farms with higher rateable values, which would not be eligible for the farm diversification relief. Similarly, it would apply to existing stud farms, including those established in premises that were not previously agricultural, which would not qualify for the farm diversification relief. Stud farms that would otherwise qualify for the farm diversification relief would be eligible for the discretionary element of the new scheme. That means that local authorities would be able to top-up relief to 100 per cent, on top of the stud farms' concession for that five-year period.

1113
I now move on to the mandatory relief for village food shops. In 1998 we implemented the village shop rate relief scheme. That provides 50 per cent mandatory rate relief to the sole small general store and post office in designated villages with a population below 3,000. Local authorities can give discretionary relief up to 100 per cent to these and any other small businesses in such villages. The scheme is intended to provide support to essential services in isolated rural communities. We want villages to be active living communities where people are also able to meet their essential needs. The most basic community service for most rural communities is the local shop. We want to retain shops in small communities offering a wider range of products and services.
The Green Paper on local government finance published last September suggested extending the mandatory rate relief to other food shops, pubs and petrol stations. We have already implemented the extension of mandatory rate relief to the sole small pub or petrol station in small villages, through secondary legislation. That took effect on 5th April 2001. The Bill would do the same for all small food shops in those villages.
At the moment, where there is one general store selling food it gets mandatory rate relief. But where there are two—for example a grocer and a butcher—neither gets mandatory relief. Some local authorities already give discretionary relief in such cases. But the Bill would ensure that all food shops get mandatory relief in those villages. Primary legislation is needed because the current legislation specifically limits mandatory relief to the sole general store selling mainly food and household goods. That cannot be overridden by orders made under the power used to extend the relief to pubs and petrol stations.
Mandatory relief would be extended to shops that mainly sell food for human consumption, as these are all equally essential to the community. Separate butchers, bakers and grocers provide the same service to a village as a general store that provides a wider range of foods. Shops that sell other goods or services, subsidiary to their food sales, would also be eligible for the mandatory relief. But it would not extend to shops which are, for example, mainly confectioners, tearooms, restaurants or takeaways. These catering businesses do not provide the same essential community service as shops that provide basic foodstuffs. However, shops that sell basic foodstuffs but also provide hot food or confectionery would still get the relief', provided that those catering and confectionery activities accounted for less than half of their trade.
Relief would be given on the same terms as that for sole general stores and post offices, limited to properties with a rateable value of less than £6,000. Again, local authorities would have the discretion to top up the 50 per cent mandatory relief to provide 100 per cent relief where needed. They would also retain the discretion to give relief to any business in a designated village with a rateable value up to £12,000 if it is of benefit to the local community, including those providing mainly catering or confectionery.
1114
The Bill amends the main rating legislation, the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Therefore, it extends to England and Wales. The new order-making powers would be exercisable in Wales by the National Assembly, including setting rateable value thresholds, and commencement and possible extension of the farm diversification scheme.
The two measures in the Bill would provide welcome financial assistance to small rural businesses; they would help reduce costs for farmers who wish to diversify; and would provide more rate relief to village food shops. This further support to rural businesses takes forward the policies set out in the Action Plan for Farming and the Rural White Paper. It would be even more welcome to help with the long-term recovery in those areas from the current foot and mouth outbreak. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —
(Lord Whitty.)
2.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to give support to the measures proposed in the Bill before us today. I would also add that these measures were first called for some three years ago by my honourable friend Jim Paice. That is recorded at col. 1172 of Hansard of another place of 21st May 1998. It is a great pity that it has taken three years of deep declines in farm incomes and the outbreak of foot and mouth to stir the Government into action. At this stage, I should remind the House of my family's farming interest. which is entered in the House's register of interests.
We have seen the incomes of farmers fall dramatically. Deloitte & Touche published an analysis of farm incomes last October, before the foot and mouth outbreak. It showed that the average sized farm of some 500 acres, which earned £80,000 in the mid-1990s earned only some £8,000 in 2000. That same sized farm is estimated to make a loss of some £4,000 in 2001. Consequential to that loss are the jobs of some 47,000 farmers and farm workers, who have left the industry over the past two years. Agriculture's contribution to the nation is now down to just 0.80 per cent. It was 1.6 per cent just five years earlier. Its contribution has halved thanks to many of the Government's policies.
The Bill will give statutory rate relief of 50 per cent on rates levied on former agricultural buildings with a rateable value of £6,000 or less that are to be used for non-agricultural enterprises. The limit of £6,000 on rateable values contrasts with the definition of small business in the Green Paper on local government finance as one which occupies space with a rateable value of £8,000 or less. It contrasts even less favourably with that offer of hardship rate relief to businesses in rural areas targeted at businesses with a rateable value below £12,000 announced by the noble Lord on 23rd April this year. Will the Minister comment on the level of diversification that the Government expect to achieve by using a £6,000 limit?
The scheme is set to run for five years. I understand that it will be reviewed again after that period. Will the five-year period be extended to someone who enters

1115
the scheme in year three, or will that person receive relief for only two years? It is important that this issue is clarified to ensure that the person wishing to diversify has a sound financial base on which to build his business. Is the Minister confident that businesses which have been caught up in the foot and mouth outbreak and whose animals were slaughtered at its start—as early as last February—will be able to qualify within the 183 days laid down in the Bill for those farm buildings that have been used for agricultural purposes? It would be appalling if the very people whom the Bill is intended to help should be jeopardised in any way.
Will the Minister explain why a fiscal limit on rateable value is preferred to a limit on an area of premises involved? The latter—the area of premises—would surely be a fairer way to view the differences of rateable values across the country. One has only to look at the difference between schools to know that the value varies enormously even within a county. Will the Minister confirm that the limit of £6,000 will apply to buildings being used and will ignore common access, parking, shared toilets or secretarial facilities that might be possible on that land? Will the Minister clarify whether the relief will be restricted to a single business over five years? For example, what will happen if one company which starts in year one either fails or moves away in year three and the building falls vacant?
I understand from the Explanatory Notes that it is for the local authority to decide which of its communities located in a designated rural area meets the qualifying criteria and to place them on the rural settlement list. The rural areas themselves are designated centrally by government. Will the Minister clarify how many rural areas are so currently designated and whether a local authority can request an additional area to be included? My understanding is that there is no legislative definition of a designated rural area. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.
I further understand that the department decrees that rural areas must be a given distance away from built-up areas and that they are physically separated from them. Will that disadvantage farmers whose buildings are closer perhaps to an edge of a town or a larger village? Will it be possible for one part of a farm to be classified as rural while the part containing the buildings for diversification might not be so?
Much debate took place in another place on the question of equestrian businesses that are currently worth some £2.5 billion to the nation. My honourable friends Owen Paterson and James Gray argued at great length during the proceedings of the Bill about the anomalies within the "horse world". I wonder whether the Government have had second thoughts about the additional variations to the Bill in favouring new businesses against those that are already established. Many of the already established businesses are going through difficult times. Those existing businesses have been devastated by the restrictions that the foot and mouth outbreak has
1116
brought to them. Those very same establishments would not qualify for help under the Bill. Have the Government reconsidered the suggestion that the only way to tackle the problem of equestrianism is to provide full agricultural exemption for old and existing equestrian businesses?
I turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, which refers specifically to village shops. I should again declare an interest as Patron of VIRSA, an organisation which helps to promote and encourage shops. Clause 3 deals with rate relief for rural food shops. While this inclusion is welcome, I am concerned that the Government have not taken fully on board the dire circumstances in which many shops presently find themselves. The incomes of many in an infected foot and mouth area have virtually dried up completely. Even now, when fewer daily outbreaks of the disease are being reported, some of those shops are still experiencing a lack of visitors. The Government have made welcome additional announcements of financial help. But I have to say to the noble Lord that many organisations and individuals have been in contact with me. They feel that some of these moves, while welcome, are totally inadequate to deal with the situation.
We on these Benches welcome and support the Bill. It is more than necessary, particularly at this time. However, bearing in mind our contracted discussion today, I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to my questions before we move on to consider amendments in Committee.
2.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and believe that it demonstrates a move in the right direction. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, pointed out that her honourable friend had called for these measures some time ago. I must tell the House that Liberal Democrat local authorities up and down the country have been implementing all the discretion they have at their disposal as regards offering rate relief to rural businesses. They, too, will welcome this extension of relief to support the struggle to maintain the kinds of services that we all agree are necessary.
I shall deal first with the agricultural part of the Bill, on which I should like to raise two points with the Minister. First, why have the Government found it necessary to repeat what I believe to he a mistake when addressing farm enterprises; that is, to continue with the practice of designating rural areas? Wherever it is situated, a farm may need to diversify. It could be on the edge of a town or even in a semi-urban area, but that makes little difference to the farming process. Continuing with the designation of rural areas simply adds to the red tape and difficulty of implementing this Bill. I believe that it would have been better if all farm enterprises had been able to qualify.
I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on why it was felt necessary to continue with the practice of designation, which I believe is merely a hangover from previous years. Indeed I, too, shall be interested in his reply to the question put to him by the noble

1117
Baroness; namely, what would happen if a large holding fell into both a designated and an undesignated area, so that some of its buildings might be in the wrong place?
Secondly, I wish to question how firmly in reality are the provisions of this Bill based. Certainly if it was not being introduced at the end of this Session, the Liberal Democrats would have proposed a large number of amendments to it. The fact that we have not done so indicates that we shall welcome its inclusion in the statute book, but I do not believe that it recognises the reality of life in rural areas today. The Bill is too prescriptive as regards what diversification may mean for farms and ignores the reality of village life. Perhaps I may explain exactly what I mean by that statement.
The Bill attempts to define which enterprises can be helped within a village by suggesting that such enterprises should provide essential village services and that their turnover in food should comprise more than 50 per cent. However, it is a fact that nowadays one might find that an Internet café had been established. Its main turnover would not be in catering, through supplying coffee, cakes and so forth to those coming into the cafe to use the essential service of Internet access. I understand that, under the terms of the Bill, such a business would not qualify for any relief because more than 50 per cent of its income derives from the catering element. However, all of the other facilities available to the people living in that village may have closed down. Such a circumstance clearly does not recognise the way in which village life is developing.
For example, if a shop sells those goods which it is essential to purchase fresh each day, such as bread and vegetables, it should be recognised that those goods have quite a low value. Their turnover value may well be low but, again, it could be that the specialist café element of the enterprise attracts people to the premises. The cafe part would provide the highest turnover for the business as a whole, but would nevertheless support the fresh food outlet for the village. Again, such an enterprise would not qualify. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the Government's thinking behind these provisions.
Some debate has concerned the position of third parties if they rent out farm buildings. Would such parties qualify for relief under this scheme? Can the Minister assure the House that they will do so, because if a farmer is seeking to diversify by renting out farm buildings at the attractive rate that inclusion under the terms of this Bill could offer, that would provide a powerful incentive to those considering renting such buildings?
I shall turn now to the matter of the five-year limit. This is most unfortunate and appears to have been applied in a very impractical way. For those businesses which have been affected by the foot and mouth crisis, it may well be that only in two or three years from now will they be able to think about diversification. They will then be eligible for only two or three years of relief. If they cannot establish themselves for four years, they will receive relief for merely one year. That is not as helpful as the Government would like to think.
1118
I understand that the Government have stated that it may be possible to extend the provisions of the Bill, but we on these Benches would prefer to see this as a "holding" measure until a proper local government finance Bill can be introduced. Such a Bill would return control of the uniform business rate to local authorities. Then we would not have to discuss which services were essential for a village because the village would be able to decide for itself and make the appropriate representations to the local authority. The . authority would then be able to consider the case. While governments continue to deny local authorities the proper discretion required as regards the level of local business rates, we shall continue to need to consider complicated Bills of the kind before the House today. That is merely trying to make the best of a difficult job. We would like to look forward to the time when the uniform business rate is returned to local authority control.
Finally, I should like to make two further points. First, can the Minister explain what will be the definition of micro and small businesses when considering the threshold for this relief? Between the DTI and the DETR there appear to be several different definitions of what constitutes a small business and whether such enterprises should be eligible for relief.
Secondly, I echo the point made from the Conservative Benches as regards the importance of the equestrian community and its significant contribution to rural areas. Undoubtedly the Bill takes a small step towards helping such enterprises, in particular those concerns which have diversified into other areas. However, once again, such assistance does not go far enough.
2.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I declare again my interest as a trustee of a small property in Scotland which has farming interests. Having more freedom than the two Baronesses who have just spoken, I do not give the Bill such a warm welcome. However. the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that I do give it a guarded welcome and that is better than has been possible for some of the government legislation that has come before us of late.
My noble friend Lady Byford reminded the House that, under this Government, agriculture and the countryside have been facing increasing difficulties. They fell into deep trouble as soon as Labour came to power. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will know, since the Prime Minister began to take an interest in the subject and appeared on the scene, the situation has only become worse. The real added value generated within this sector in the year 2000 was 1.7 per cent below that generated in 1997. That is a pretty severe indictment, given that other industries have generated on the plus side. Only agriculture and forestry have performed worse over the period. My noble friend Lady Byford also reminded the House that farm incomes have plummeted, while the rate of clearance of farmers and farm workers from the land is accelerating.

1119
All this happened before we were hit by the dreaded outbreak of foot and mouth disease. On the Friday following the Easter weekend, I drove from Moffat down through the Lake District, which had been terrific stock country. Over a distance of 60 miles, I saw precisely 20 fields of sheep on either side of the motorway. As soon as I came out of the foot and mouth affected area, I saw 20 fields of sheep over a distance of one-and-a-half miles. That is the scale of the desolation in certain parts of the country. Farmers in those areas have to face that on top of the already bad situation.
There is no simple way of knowing the scale of farm diversification, let alone the income that is derived from it. Opportunities will vary from area to area. In some areas there will be far too much diversification; in others there will not be enough. That is because the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, is far too prescriptive; it does not allow villages and agricultural areas to decide what is best for them. That would be wrong so far as the Government are concerned. Communities are being told that if they fall within a designated area they can have help—but that help may be needed in an area that is not designated. That will lead to further difficulties and resentment within the countryside and the farming communities.
Without question, parts of the Bill are complete nonsense and need careful scrutiny and discussion, but we are prohibited from doing that. I will highlight at Committee stage one particular area of concern which exemplifies the stupidity of some of the Government's proposals.
I should like to ask the Minister about town and country planning issues, where I anticipate major difficulties will arise. It is a basic principle that we prevent isolated developments away from centres of population unless they are for agricultural or forestry use. Many farmers are meeting resistance to diversification schemes from local authorities even though there has been a relaxation. The Government's proposed further relaxation can lead only to more difficulties in the future. Can the Government offer any further advice to local authorities on how they should handle these very difficult and sensitive issues?
I remember trying to encourage farm diversification when I was a Minister. Although one tried to help with one hand—as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will fully understand—the next people through the door were the preservationists, who wanted no change at all within the countryside. But the countryside is a living environment of people and animals and it must adapt. Parts of the Bill will help it to do so.
Finally, on a general point, I hope that the Minister agrees that farmers are the key to the future of the countryside. I hope that the Government will undertake a wide-ranging review of how the countryside will work in the future—particularly after the devastation of certain areas by foot and mouth disease. I repeat the call that I have made on more than one occasion to the Minister of Agriculture that there should be a Royal Commission to look into this issue,
1120
starting now. When it comes to looking into the future, I hope that the Minister will make certain that the points raised today about the restrictive nature of the Bill and the importance of making it wider and more applicable across the whole country will be taken into account.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there have been varying degrees of warmth of support for the Bill from noble Lords who have spoken. The Bill will be welcome in many parts of the country and will make a contribution towards resolving some of the wider questions which have been addressed today in terms of agricultural decline and the problems of rural areas, particularly those afflicted by foot and mouth disease.
The Bill is a limited but very important piece of legislation for breathing life into enterprises within the countryside. The introduction of the new rate relief will help both farmers and village communities. The Bill's proposals follow through some of the commitments that we made in our rural policy White Paper and action for farmers.
However, some of the issues raised today are not dealt with in the Bill. I do not therefore intend to reply in detail on wider issues of agricultural policy, local government finance or the planning system as a whole. The Bill needs to be taken for what it is and I shall confine my response to issues which form specific parts of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of the threshold and asked a number of other questions in relation to that. She asked why the threshold was £6,000 in this context whereas in the context of support for other small businesses the threshold is £8,000. I should point out, however, that that support is tapered above the £6,000 level in the context to which the noble Baroness referred. There obviously has to be a cut-off point. The figure of £6,000 is the cut-off point of mandatory 100 per cent relief. However, contrary to what has been implied by some noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, local authorities have a further discretion over and above this figure to provide rate relief up to £12,000 rateable value, 75 per cent of which will be refunded from central funds. There is therefore more flexibility and more scope for local discretion than has been implied today.
The noble Baroness asked whether the £6,000 threshold includes common assets. The answer is perhaps not entirely satisfactory: it depends upon the property. The rateable value of £6,000 will relate to the unit of property; whatever is covered in the rateable assessment will be included. If there is a supportive service in a separate rateable property, that will not have undergone the same change of use. Obviously how that applies from case to case will depend upon the layout of the buildings on which the rateable value will have been assessed.
The noble Baroness asked whether the rate relief will apply to farms which have only recently diversified and how far back it will extend, particularly in the light

1121
of foot and mouth. In order to qualify for the relief, properties would have to be used for agricultural purposes for at least half of the 12 months immediately before the Act comes into force. This is to avoid complicating a situation where there are seasonal differences. For example, if, as a result of foot and mouth disease, a barn has not been used but is still there for agricultural purposes, then it remains an agricultural purpose building and is rated as such. It would have a continuous agricultural use connotation and would be eligible.
The noble Baroness also asked about what would happen if a business changed hands after diversification. Rate relief will be given for five years per property for as long as the scheme lasts. I shall come back to the scheme in a moment. If it is granted for five years, when the business changes hands it will continue to enjoy the rate relief for that period.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my question was that if I, as a person to whom rate relief was given, stayed in the property for three years and then moved on, would anyone who came in and took over that property have two years of rate relief to run or would be or she have five years to run?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it will be granted for five years per property for as long as the scheme runs. The new person would have only the outstanding two years, unless there is an extension when we come to review the situation. If the property was used for non-agricultural purposes, the relief would run for five years, whoever owned it and whatever the nature of the non-agricultural activity within that property.
The noble Baroness also asked about horse enterprises. When we started on this trial, we had horse enterprises very much in mind and consulted on the proposed new rate relief for farmers who were thinking of turning over part of their property to horse enterprises. The result of the consultation was that it would not be sensible to confine the proposals to horse enterprises. We therefore did not proceed with those proposals but subsumed them into our proposals for rate relief on all new enterprises on farms. Other equestrian activities, such as stud farming and so on, are also dealt with in the proposals.
The noble Baroness asked why we had based the limit on rateable value rather than on the size of premises. The reason is that the rating system is immediately available and the local authority knows the rateable value of every building; it does not necessarily know the dimensions of properties by area or size. So it is a question of administrative convenience rather than anything else.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the question of why all equestrian premises should not in effect be classified as agricultural. All non-agricultural activities, whether or not they involve horses, are treated in the same way. It would have widespread implications were we to reclassify equestrian outlets as agricultural.
1122
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, raised the question of why we are using the designation "rural areas" and how it operates. "Rural areas" are based on parish council areas. They are identified with the co-operation of the local authority. Up to 10,000 have been identified following the coming into effect of the Local Government Act 1997. The use of such a designation has been reasonably successful. If areas have not been so designated but have communities of fewer than 3,000, they could immediately be added to the list; it is not restricted to the areas that already appear on it. The other point is that in relation to the diversification side, the list does not apply anyway. It is determined on the basis of property that has been used for agricultural purposes not in relation to the designation of rural areas. So the issue arises in relation to only part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the Bill's restriction on what can be regarded as "essential" in relation to village shops. Our intention is that the Bill should cover the provision of mandatory relief. Again, there is some discretion in relation to local authorities and up to 75 per cent government support for local authorities extending their discretion in other areas. But we are concerned primarily with essential services. That is why we initially designated the "sole general store" and the post office and moved on to include all food provision. We regard those a s the essential services and therefore the ones to which mandatory relief should apply. Therefore, such enterprises as Internet cafés, while they may be highly desirable and may attract discretionary rate relief, are not the central part of the Bill, which is primarily about maintaining and extending services.
The noble Baroness also asked about the designation of micro-businesses. The £6,000 rateable value is based on the results of research in 1995 which showed the rates for a much higher proportion of costs for businesses with a turnover of up to £100,000. At that stage, businesses generally had rateable values of about £5,000. Upgrading that to current standards makes it about £6,000 in terms of 2000–01 rateable values. So there is a rationale, relating to the definition of micro-businesses.
I believe that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, except for the broader issues of planning referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have some sympathy with his point; however, to say that we should give heavier guidance as to how planning authorities should interpret their duties in respect of agricultural diversification runs slightly contrary to his assertion that these matters should be left to local decision-making and discretion.
We shall return to the other point raised by the noble Earl when we debate his amendment in Committee. It relates to why rate relief that was started within the five years but not at the beginning of that period should not extend beyond the five years unless the scheme itself were extended. The main reason is that. at any point, we are reacting to a situation that currently exists in rural areas and are applying a scheme which

1123
we believe is appropriate in encouraging and maintaining businesses in those areas. Whether the situation will be the same in five years' time, we shall need to judge closer to that date. Therefore, any extension beyond that and any commitment of funds beyond that would have to await that assessment.
In addition, we are addressing the issue of rate relief for small businesses as a whole. It is certainly hoped that within the next five years we shall arrive at a strategy to deal with small business costs in relation to rates more generally. While maintaining some support for rural businesses in a differential way, that may well be subsumed in a wider approach to small businesses by that date.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I sense that the Minister is nearing the end of his response. I am anxious to have a reply, either now or in writing, on the issue of rental to third parties and whether the third party would be able to qualify for rate relief.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry that I skipped that point. It was simply that the reply is unusually short. The answer is yes.
I believe that the Bill's provisions will be welcomed in many of our villages. It will be a welcome silver lining for a number of farmers who are presently experiencing severe financial constraints, not only on their main business but on their ability to diversify. I do not pretend that the Bill solves all the problems that such farmers face but it does provide some catalyst and incentive for them to move into new areas and transform village life. It also provides an incentive to village shops to maintain services to the community and to provide economic activity within villages which would otherwise lose their centres.
This is an important measure. It is one among many that we are in the process of bringing into effect in relation to rural policy. It is, of course, overladen with the current difficulties of foot and mouth and the impact of that on parts of the rural community. Nevertheless, the Bill provides a good basis for a medium-term revival of economic activity in many areas.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him to confirm two points arising from the Bill. First, will be confirm that the passage of the Bill will not in any way diminish the efforts of the Rural Task Force to devise adequate means of compensation and rate relief for businesses and farms affected by foot and mouth disease? Secondly—and I ask the Minister's forgiveness if I have misunderstood the finance—will be confirm that nothing in the Bill will lead local authorities in rural areas to seek to make good any shortfall that it causes them by increasing the rates for those who are materially affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease? I refer especially to businesses that do not presently qualify under existing rate relief provisions.
3 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's first point, I can tell him that the task force is clearly addressing the consequences of foot and mouth. Whatever policies are required to turn round and assist those areas most affected by it will be pursued. This Bill adopts an entirely separate approach to what is needed in that context. On my noble friend's second point, the discretionary area already exists for local authorities. The central funding is 75 per cent. However, for the mandatory areas for which this Bill provides, the central funding will be 100 per cent. Therefore, it would not lead to an additional rate burden being imposed on other rural enterprises or on rural residents.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering quite a few of the questions raised today, but perhaps I may pursue just a couple of them that need further clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, picked up on the very issue to which I wish, first, to return. There is obviously no argument on the mandatory effects of the Bill; it is a question of where discretion will be exercised. The Minister said that local authorities will have discretion to give greater help to those businesses, but some of those rural businesses are actually very short of money. Although I am sure that the Minister will deny this, yet again, across the Dispatch Box, I believe that the standard spending assessments are inadequate for some of those rural areas. Indeed, this will put extra pressure on them. I should like the noble Lord to comment on that issue.
Secondly, under today's proceedings, we do not have the opportunity to look through the Hansard report to check the Minister's response. However, I believe that he referred to "administrative convenience". I get worried when I hear such phrases. I thought that we were here to serve the population and to make it possible for people to have access to information regarding the measures that we are taking, rather than such access being subject to "administrative convenience". I was somewhat alarmed by that comment.
Thirdly, I return to the question that I raised on the whole issue of the five-year lag. I still have great reservations as regards the fact that the Minister indicated that it is only a one-off term of five years. If, as I said, someone moves into a property and manages to build a safe and successful business but then moves on because it outgrows the building, that farmer will only have two years left to offer any other incoming person. That seems to me to be very short-sighted. I know that the Bill stipulates a five-year term, but that is a short-sighted view because—I am sure that others will agree with me—it will not encourage anyone to come in and undertake a business proposition if he has only a two-year, rather than a five-year, base upon which to work. Can the Minister comment further in that respect?
I turn now to the reason why the Government decided to go down the rateable value route rather than taking account of the actual square footage

1125
involved. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the fact that rateable values vary enormously. Indeed, in the North, the rateable value for a particular property like the one that I have in mind could be very much less than its equivalent in the South. Obviously people in the South also need help and support, but it seems to me to be illogical that this Bill does not recognise the variation that will occur across the country. If the assessment were made on the square footage, or whatever, the rateable value of the property would not matter. It alarms me that the Bill is inflexible. as suggested by my noble friend. I do not know what we can do at this late stage, but, bearing in mind the strong vibes that I hope we are sending to the Government across the Chamber, I wonder whether the Minister could reconsider the matter.
Before I conclude, I should like to return to the equestrian issue. When responding in Committee in another place, the Minister gave an assurance that such discussions would continue but added that other events might take precedence. That is fine; but we are here making Bills. We should not be creating loopholes just because we are nearing the end of a Session. Perhaps the Minister could give me slightly more clarification in that respect before we move on.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend the Chief Whip is sitting beside me, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness much comfort that we shall be considering these matters and coming forward with any amendments that address her concerns in time for the Committee stage, to which I believe we shall shortly be moving. Indeed, as regards the questions that the noble Baroness has just asked, I am not sure that we can resolve them in relation to changes to the Bill.
I believe that the noble Baroness's main concern related to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Brennan on the burden of rates on rural areas. I should point out that that is not a change that is brought about by the Bill: discretionary relief already receives 75 per cent central funding, but that means that 25 per cent must be found by the local authority. The Bill does not change the situation. In passing, whatever the noble Baroness's concerns may be about the relative position of rural counties in the SSA process, I should stress that they have received very substantially more money in absolute terms than they did during the latter years of the previous administration. However, we are not supposed to be political at this stage in our proceedings.
The noble Baroness's points about administrative convenience and square footage as against rateable value relate to the same issue. In immediate terms, it is easier for local authorities to check the rateable value and, therefore, to get the process into operation rapidly. It would not serve the interests of those who are seeking such relief in order to set up new enterprises, or to maintain their enterprises, if we were to require the local authority to check the square footage and work it out on that basis. I agree that there might be a slightly different impact in various parts of the country; but, nevertheless, we propose to use that
1126
system in order to get the scheme under way rapidly. That ought to be of benefit to rural areas rather than having another loop of bureaucratic administration.
In relation to the five-year lag, we shall return to those aspects shortly in. Committee. As for the question of hand-over from one company to another, it would be odd if, in the case of neighbouring farms, we were to give five years to one property that had diversified and yet award seven years, or whatever, to another property next door simply because the property had changed hands in the middle of that period. Of course, we may extend or subsume the scheme in an effort to show more widespread support for local businesses, and rural businesses in particular, at a later stage. We must maintain a degree of equity between the business that runs for the full five years and a property that changes hands within that period. Anything else would be illogical and inequitable.
With those final words for this Second Reading debate, I hope that we can proceed to further stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), House resolved into Committee.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
3.8 p.m.
Clause 1 [Mandatory rate relief on former agricultural premises]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved the amendment:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ", except that subsection t6F) will continue to apply to any hereditament, subject to the condition in subsection (6G) being fulfilled, for a period of five years beginning with the day on which it first applies"
The noble Earl said: This is a subject on which we have already had rather more discussion than I thought would be the case. However, it is worth probing the Government's thoughts a little further.
The amendment highlights the rather short-term thinking of the Government. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made clear that the scheme was to run for a five year period. As I am sure the Committee will agree, substantial difficulties arise in that connection. My noble friend Lady Byford gave the example of a business that started off with good intentions but after two or three years ran in to difficulties and folded. What would be the situation with regard to an incoming business?
I am also concerned about farmers who would like to diversify but who, for a variety of reasons, are not yet in a position to do so. They might need MAFF grants which will take time to be approved. Some planning permissions will also take time to be approved. That is why I referred to town and country planning on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not want to be drawn too deeply into that quicksand. I hope that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith with his experience might be able to help the Committee on that matter.
If a local authority is reluctant to allow a change of use, a farmer may have to wait a substantial length of time to obtain the planning permission he seeks. However, the clock is already ticking. The farmer has to seek MAFF's approval for a restructuring scheme and then has to obtain planning permission. By that stage two or three years could have passed and the farmer has only a further two years of rate relief unless he is able to obtain further discretionary relief. That situation will encourage farmers to submit ill thought out proposals. There will be a rush to get on to the bandwagon to try to obtain the maximum benefit from the proposals. As I say, that will encourage farmers to submit ill thought out proposals.
The foot and mouth tragedy adds irony to the situation. Farmers in areas where there is foot and mouth disease who have diversified receive very little help from the Government and have been particularly heavily penalised. Farmers in such areas will be wary of undertaking further diversification unless long-term commitments are made to them. My amendment seeks to limit the scheme to a period of five years from the commencement of the diversification. If a farmer wants to diversify in, for example, 2003, the scheme would run to 2008. If he wants to diversify now, the scheme would run to 2006. I realise that that would be tough on the business that went bankrupt that my noble friend Lady Byford mentioned and even tougher on a business for which a two-year period applied. I do not seek to make the provision open-ended. I seek to make certain that the help that the Government are now offering is a pump-priming measure for five years from the commencement of diversification. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendment, although I suspect that the Minister will be unable to do so. This is an important issue. As we are well aware, many farmers have had a dreadful time. They may have good reasons for not wishing to take advantage of the measure straight away. My noble friend mentioned some of those reasons. It is not clear whether the Government will consider the issue. I do not find it referred to in the business of another place. I may have missed the reference; I do not think so.
In a year's time a farmer may feel able to diversify. As my noble friend suggested, the farmer would be eligible to a period of only four years. If he waited two years, the period would be only three years. I return to my earlier point which the Minister was unable to take on board: it is much less attractive for another person to take on the business if the timescale is shortened. We sought to make clear that point at Second Reading. I support my noble friend.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The principle he enunciates seems to me unexceptionable. I accept the procedural difficulties that we all face. However, even words of sympathy from the Minister at this stage would demonstrate some understanding of the situation. Perhaps something could be undertaken subsequently regarding the principle.
1128
The noble Earl raised the problem of planning difficulties which are a well-known quicksand into which changes of use in rural areas tumble rapidly. It is an area for which no applicant can be wholly responsible. The situation is even more vexed and difficult if he happens to be within the area of a national park where the planning situation, quite properly in many respects, is more restrictive. However, attitudes across the length and breadth of the country differ on these matters.
The crucial issue is that the relief should be available for the five-year period from the start of the diversification. The diversification cannot start until all the requisite permissions are granted. That of itself might take three or four years. If that were so, it would be nice to think that the relief would be available for that period. It is only occasionally the fault of the applicant that these matters run into the sand.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, allow me to indicate that were we not at this stage of Parliament, I might be sympathetic to the amendment. I understand the underlying problem to which noble Lords have referred. However, even were we to have more time at our disposal, we would be unlikely to accept the amendment. The noble Earl referred to the issue as short term. In a sense it is short to medium term. We are dealing with a situation which arises now. The measure is there to provide immediate help to those farmers who wish to diversify now into non-agricultural activities. The noble Earl rightly referred to other measures of support available from MAFF and others. But rate relief is an immediate and medium-term attractive support to farmers wishing to diversify their business; or to allow others to diversify their business on the properties. In one sense, therefore, it is short term and needs to be put into effect immediately. It meets a specific need which is clear at the moment.
The situation may change in five years' time. It is also true that if we had a huge take-up the scope for agricultural diversification would be limited by the existence of current buildings and so forth. So we are providing a scheme for a fixed period which will be known to potential ratepayers and the owners of that property. We have provided, if the situation is maintained and if the scheme works, for the extension of that period beyond those five years if the need is there.
I referred to the other change at the earlier stage. It is to be hoped that by that time a more general scheme for rate relief—it has been referred to in the local government finance Green Paper—may provide monetary relief to all small businesses which would be covered by the diversification scheme under the Bill, and many other schemes. If that is so, clearly one would have to adapt the scheme even if one wished to give further differential support to diversification at that stage.
With regard to businesses changing hands within the five-year period—perhaps I repeat myself—it is important to recognise that this measure relates to a

1129
property and not a business. Any new person taking over a diversified business, or a property already containing a previously diversified business, is not replacing agricultural activity. Therefore, it is not diversification in that sense. The offer of relief over five years is intended to provide an incentive to move from agricultural to other use, not to move between different forms of agricultural use.
I believe that one must see the scheme for what it is. It is a five-year definitive offer to try to help farmers who seek diversification or to attract businesses to occupy fanning premises for diversification in the context of the crisis and problems which currently affect the rural community. The context in which we are addressing that type of problem may well change within five years. Therefore, although obviously we wish to keep open the option for the scheme and may well trigger the option before the end of the five years, for the moment five years appears to us to be an adequate incentive and signal to farmers and others that the Government would support financially the diversification of such properties.
With regard to non-farming businesses, contrary to what was said, significant help is being provided to those who suffer from the knock-on effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. However, we should separate that help from assistance provided within the Bill. We started this process before the foot and mouth disease broke out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, a serious problem already existed in relation to economic activity within the countryside, and that problem is addressed. The foot and mouth disease is a serious aggravation of the problem but it is being dealt with separately. Therefore, we should not mix up the two.
In view of the manner in which the Government are approaching the issue, I do not believe that the noble Earl's amendment would be appropriate. Therefore, I hope that he will not press it and that the Committee will resist it.
Baroness Byford: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question in response to what he said. If, for example, either a farmer chooses to take early retirement, which I suspect some farmers may do because of the enormous pressures put on them, or a farm is sold because of a death and a new owner takes over, am Ito understand that the new owner would not be eligible for this scheme?
Lord Whitty: I may have to clarify this matter in writing. However, my understanding of the situation is that if a farm changes hands but the property is still in agricultural use—the farm may not be full of animals because of foot and mouth disease, but it will be in agricultural use and will not be used for anything else—the property will continue to be eligible at the point at which it moves into non-agricultural use. In other words, the scheme applies to the property and not to the owner of the property, and it applies to the nature of the use to which the property is put.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make a point for the
1130
record. Although I recognise that we do not want to enter into a discussion about foot and mouth disease, he said that significant help was being offered to non-farming businesses which have suffered from the effects of the outbreak. We on these Benches do not believe that the Government are offering significant help to non-farming businesses. We have asked constantly for consequential loss and interest-free loans, but such help has not been forthcoming. Therefore, I dispute the Minister's statement.
Lord Whitty: The Liberal-Democrat Benches may well say that the help provided is not sufficient.; nevertheless, it is significant. I believe that great assistance will be given in many areas through rate relief and through help to the rural councils affected in those areas via temporary reductions in rateable value, and so forth.
It is true that the Government are not providing compensation for income loss. However, we are not providing compensation for income loss to farmers either; we are providing compensation for loss of beasts. To go down the road of compensation for income loss would be a very slippery slope for any government. In effect, they would become the insurer of last resort. My noble friend Lady Hayman and others have made it clear to the House that that is not the way in which we intend to proceed. There are other significant—I insist on that word—forms of relief for businesses that have been affected by the knock-on effects of foot and mouth.
I recognise that there will be a continuing problem in this area but we should perhaps return to it after certain events. I do not doubt that foot and mouth will be debated when we return. It is not appropriate to discuss it in detail in relation to this Bill, which deals with an underlying situation rather than one that arose as a result of the unfortunate events of the past few months.
The Earl of Caithness: I am therefore sure that my noble friend Lady Byford will be making a Statement on foot and mouth as soon as Parliament reassembles!
I thank the Minister for his full and thoughtful reply, although he will not be surprised to hear that I am not very satisfied with it. I am sure that the Chief Whip, who is sitting next to the Minister, is, deep in his heart, supportive of my amendment, which would help farmers. He helped and advised many farmers when diversification was taking place, and I am sure that they would ask him to be a little more understanding of the practical problems that they face. If we had had longer we might have made some progress.
The Minister said that the proposal is a short-term measure. That makes it sound as if farm diversification is new. However, my first job as a land agent in 1972 involved a farm diversification programme. That approach has been around for at least 30 years. To suddenly come up with the five-year limit is helpful but impractical. It would have been much better for farmers if the Government had seen fit to agree to my amendment.

1131
I hope that the Minister will clarify one point. He lost me when responding to a query raised by my noble friend Lady Byford. He was discussing the situation in which a business goes bankrupt within five years and a new one is established. I was not certain whether or not he said that the new business could benefit from rate relief.
Lord Whitty: The new business would benefit in relation to the outstanding part of the five years; the five-year period would not start again.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister.I was not certain whether the period related to the first business—the change from agriculture—rather than the change from industry to industry.
I was sorry that we got no support at all from the Liberal Benches. I congratulate the noble Lord on getting the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to her feet, but that related to a different point.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I was simply trying to save the House time. I referred to the matter during my speech on Second Reading and I thought that that would be adequate. I said that if time allowed we should have supported several amendments, including that which is before us. However, we are anxious to get the Bill on to the statute book and will therefore accept it in its current form.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is wonderful to get some Liberal support.
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. The Government's approach is a mistake but he says that it involves a short-term measure. I hope that when he considers the longer-term measure, he will take account of the valid arguments that this side of the House has put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 9th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have received a Commons message on the Health and Social Care Bill. We need to adjourn briefly. As a result of some effective sign langauge from the door of the Chamber, I believe that it is intended to suggest a break of 20 minutes. I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.30 to 3.50 p.m.]

Health and Social Care Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. — (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 27 as first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 6
6 Before Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
"Reform of Community Health Councils
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the reform of Community Health Councils established for districts in England under section 20 of the 1977 Act.
(2) The regulations shall provide for—

(a) renaming Community tiealth Councils as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils");

(b) the information which local National Health Service bodies must provide to Councils;

(c) the funding of Councils and the provision of premises and other facilities by the Secretary of State;

(d) the membership of Councils.

(3) The functions of a Council are—

(a) to establish sub-committees for each National Health Service trust and Primary Care Trust in the district of the Council, to be known as Patients' Forums (referred to in this section as "Forums");

(b) to facilitate the co-ordination by Forums of their activities:

(c) to make reports and submit recommendations to Health Authorities, local authorities and their committees, National Health Service trusts. Primary Care Trusts, the national patients' body for England and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;

(d) to carry out such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services);

(e) to appoint, for each Forum within its district, one member as a non executive director to the board of the trust to which the Forum relates

(f) to appoint a representative, having such functions as may be prescribed. to attend meetings of each relevant Health Authority:

(g) to arrange for functions of Forums to be performed under joint arrangements between Councils, where such arrangements are appropriate to meet the needs of their communities;

(h) to receive and respond to disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23) where such disclosures reveal matters of concern for patients in the health service or for the wider community;

1133

(i)to refer issues of concern to patients to Health Authorities, local authorities and such national quality assurance bodies as the regulations may prescribe and to the Secretary of State;

(j) such other functions as the regulations may prescribe.

(4) The functions of a Forum are to—

(a) monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust to which it relates;

(b) obtain the views of patients, carers and the wider community about those services and report on those views to the Council and to the trust;

(c) having regard to the views obtained in accordance with paragraph (b), provide advice and make reports and recommendations about matters relating to those services to the Council. the relevant Health Authority, and the trust;

(d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services;

(e) carry out such functions in relation to primary care services as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(f) in prescribed circumstances, to perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers;

(g) carry out such other functions as may he prescribed.

(5) Regulations shall provide for the membership of a Forum, which shall comprise—

(a) as to at least a quarter of its membership, members or representatives of voluntary organisations whose members or client groups have an interest in the health service;

(b) as to at least a quarter of its membership, patients;

(c) as to at least a quarter of its membership, carers;

(d) such other persons as may be prescribed.

(6) References in subsection (4) to "services" are references to—

(a) services provided as part of the health service (within the meaning of the 1977 Act) in England;

(b) services provided in England in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority; and

(c) services provided elsewhere (and not part of the health service in England) in pursuance of section 31 arrangements with a local authority in England.

(7) In this section—

(a) "relevant Health Authority" in subsection (4)(c) in relation to a Forum for a Primary Care Trust, means the Health Authority whose area is, or includes, the area for which the trust is established;

(b) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(c) "section 31 arrangements" means arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities);

(d) "carer", in relation to a patient, means a person who provides care for the patient, but who is not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment;

(e) "the health service" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act;

(f) "patient" includes (as well as a patient within the meaning of that Act) a person who receives services provided in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following Reason—
6A Because it is inappropriate for Community Health Councils to he reformed in the way proposed by the Lords.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A. In speaking to this Motion I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 8A to 8G, 9 to 15, 82 and 83.
As noble Lords will know, in the NHS Plan we set out proposals for a radical change to the system of patient representation, including the establishment in every trust and primary care trust of a patient advocacy and liaison service, with a fundamental building block of a patients' forum for every trust and PCT. The intention was that the scrutiny function of community health councils would be transferred to the overview and scrutiny committees of elected local authorities and that an independent advocacy service would be established where current support for patients in pursuing concerns about patient services is patchy and inconsistent.
The new system would have replaced community health councils because the Government believe that, whatever their strengths and weaknesses, CHCs have not been able to deliver the strength, consistency and power of patient representation we believe to he essential. In discussions which have taken place both in the other place and in this House, the Bill has been amended and in many cases improved upon. However, other amendments made in this House had the effect of undermining that approach; some were technically and legally unworkable and do not deliver the change in the structure based on independent patients' forums.
We believe overall that we have made significant efforts to find an agreed way forward. It is now clear. given the time constraints with a pending general election, that the Bill would be jeopardised unless we removed clauses relating to patient representations. We are committed to greater empowerment of patients, but we are also determined to lift the burden of nursing care costs for elderly people and their families as soon as possible and it is essential that we meet our October timetable.
As a consequence, the Commons returned the Bill with further amendments. The effect of those amendments, in combination with amendments made in this House and accepted by the Commons, is to leave the existing law in relation to community health councils and the Association of Community Health Councils intact. They will also remove from the Bill the provisions relating to patient councils, patient forums and the new patient body. We regret the loss of the new national patients' body. We believe that the wider role and membership for the body and the opportunity to bring on board those voluntary organisations representing patients would have been a considerable step forward. But we cannot have two statutory national bodies to represent patients and the public. So maintaining the Association of CHCs means we must withdraw the proposals for the new body in the Bill. We will need to think again about how we pick up the proposals from the feasibility study on national

1135
patient representation that was carried out by the department and a consortium of leading patients' organisations.
Change is inevitable in relation to patient representation and patient involvement. We will still seek to establish patient forums. They are an essential tool if patients are to challenge and change each part of the NHS. We will need further legislation to give them the statutory independence we would like them to have. But in the interim, non-statutory forums can be established.
To improve patient representation change is inevitable. We shall need to return to these matters after the election. Further legislation may be necessary. As we said from the start of this long debate, if it is to be practicable any change must be as seamless as possible and we must make the best and most appropriate use of the skills and expertise already within the system. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A. — (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments. We have reached a position that I, and I expect he, would rather we had not reached on these vexed issues. I am perfectly certain that, but for the Government's obduracy, we could have reached an agreement that would have required them to move only a short distance from the position to which they have adhered so doggedly throughout the passage of the Bill.
In matters such as this I ask myself whether we are being unreasonable. I do not believe that we are. Particularly on Report, it was noticeable that not only were there no supporters of the Government's policy on this side of the House, but also no unequivocal supporters on the Government Benches, apart from the Minister himself. I submit that that is telling and reflects what I have found to be the opinion around the country at large.
Patient groups and informed commentators are, almost to a man and woman, unable to comprehend why the Government have chosen to reorganise patient representation from scratch rather than build upon and improve the current arrangements. The Government have themselves to blame for that situation. Had they engaged in proper consultation from the outset, the conclusion might have been a great deal happier.
In the situation in which we now find ourselves, my chief fear is that the uncertainty generated by the lack of a definitive conclusion in this Parliament will cause the key staff in community health councils around the country to vote with their feet and to decide that enough is enough. I genuinely hope that that will not happen and that, in the short time that they have left, the Government will discourage any such moves.
1136
The substantive debate is over, at least for now. We do not intend to obstruct the Government in removing from the Bill the clauses relating to patient representation. Clearly, to have had our amendments accepted would have been the ideal outcome for us. However, making the substance of those amendments an issue on which we can campaign during the weeks ahead is an outcome with which we can live quite comfortably. Whichever party wins the general election, it will want to introduce reforms to patient representation. I believe that there is a legitimate debate to be held during the election campaign on that issue.
I have one question for the Minister. With the Bill framed as it will be when it leaves this House, we shall have a situation in which overview and scrutiny committees will be brought into being alongside the community health councils, which will continue in being for the present at least. There would appear to be an element of overlap in the functions of each. Can the Minister comment on how that overlap will be reconciled in practical terms?
He also mentioned that patients' forums will be set up on a non-statutory basis. I would be grateful if he could give the House some idea of how they will be required to interact with community health councils. What timescale do the Government envisage for establishing patients' forums?
Once again, I thank the Minister for what he has told the House today and I look forward to a resolution of these issues at some future date, hopefully with a Conservative government on the Benches opposite.
4 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, like the Minister, I have regrets about the failure to agree a compromise arrangement in respect of Amendment No. 6 and the Government's original proposals. Unfortunately, there was too little time. I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and regret that discussions on these matters between the Government and the CHCs did not begin earlier. It is extremely difficult to negotiate at the kind of speed that was required.
Unfortunately, we have a grave situation in which the CHCs may be in limbo for a potentially long time, with difficulty recruiting staff, with uncertainty about their future and so forth. That is greatly to be regretted as a result of the failure of the parties to resolve the ingredients of the Bill.
On a more upbeat note, we should take the opportunity between the general election and the presentation of a new Bill to rethink the matter and to look again at the way in which patients should be represented. Will the Minister undertake to consult widely, to involve patients, CHCs, local government and others in discussions about those future arrangements, whether they relate to patients' councils, patients' forums, PALS or whatever.
It would also be useful if the Minister could indicate where he sees the balance lying between giving directions and primary legislation. Obviously, there is

1137
a great deal that a government in giving directions can do in terms of setting up patients' forums. An irreducible minimum of primary legislation is still required and I urge the Government not to take a headlong path down the direction route but to come back with a coherent comprehensive plan for patient representation in primary legislation.
It remains for me simply to say that I hope that out of the wreckage of this part of the Bill after the election we can secure a new system of patient representation which is strongly independent and coherent, and has a national body to co-ordinate it, which serves the interests of and empowers patients in the NHS. I look forward to considering the further legislation mentioned by the Minister, but I hope that it will be built on the best of the existing system rather than outright abolition. And we, too, on these Benches look forward to the inevitable public debate on these matters during the election.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord referred only to patient representation, but the community health councils serve the interests of the public at large, representing them as well as patients. It seems to me most extraordinary that the Government have not withdrawn the proposal about the joint overview and scrutiny committee and will expect CHCs and that committee together to represent public opinion. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Howe as regards the extent to which the present statutory powers of the two bodies will overlap.
However, apart from that, there will be competition. I cannot see how the proposal can work. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not withdrawn the introduction of the joint overview and scrutiny committee? The question of how one democratises the health service is not an easy one to answer. I am not sure that it is good project but the way in which it is happening is bound to lead to a good deal of conflict. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the Government are leaving the situation as it now is.
Lord Rea: My Lords, from the beginning I was against the abolition of CHCs but, like many other noble Lords, I favoured their reform. I believe that our amendment which was accepted carried the seeds of that reform rather effectively, building as it did on many of the structures mentioned in the NHS Plan. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is a little hard on the Government in saying that it is entirely their fault that the amendment was rejected. I understand that the Government would have been willing to accept a number of measures incorporated in our amendment but there was too little time and the operation of a number of forces, the details of which I shall not go into, made that impossible. I hope that the measures incorporated in that amendment will be considered in future discussions which I am sure will start soon after the election.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that we first started to consider the question of community
1138
health councils in the debate on the Queen's speech some little time ago. It has been an enriching debate. I reject the charge made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because right from the start the Government have been concerned to put in place a much more robust system for patient and public involvement in the health service. At all times we have sought to ensure that the public have speedy access to internal trust mechanisms and advocacy and a powerful patient forum within each NHS organisation so that the views of patients and the public really can come to the fore.
We have worked very hard, particularly in recent days, to find a satisfactory way through. Like other noble Lords, I regret that it has not been possible to do that. It would be a pity if, as a result. there was uncertainty among staff who currently work within community health councils. Whatever we eventually arrive at by way of future arrangements, we shall always need good people with the experience to relate to, and act on behalf of, patients. I have no doubt that with the independent advocacy services and the establishment of patient forums, albeit by directions rather than primary legislation, in future there will be endless opportunities for staff and the people who at the moment work so hard on CHCs to play a full part in the NHS.
A number of questions have been asked about the relationship between local government oversight and scrutiny committees and community health councils. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked why the OSCs were being retained in the Bill. There are two reasons, the first of which is purely technical. The clauses have been passed by both Houses. It would have been highly inappropriate, perhaps even impossible, to remove them. Secondly, and more substantially, we believe that local government must have a much stronger role in the affairs of the NHS in future and that the democratic deficit which has existed in the health service over its 52 years will be reduced by local authority involvement.
I accept that, given the current powers of CHCs and the guidance that we have given to the health service about what those bodies may do, there are issues to do with reconciling that responsibility with those of the OSCs. We shall turn to that as soon as we can, and certainly immediately after the election with a new Labour government, to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication. Obviously, we believe that patient forums are very important and we seek to ensure that they are in place in the National Health Service as soon as possible.
I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the use of directions. However, I believe that there has been almost unanimous agreement that patient forums will be an important element in future. We want to get on with that as soon as we can. As to future discussions, we shall talk to organisations and the people involved about how to take forward patient empowerment and public involvement. I therefore ask the House not to insist on its amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 8
8 Clause 13, leave out Clause 13
The Commons agreed to this amendment, and made the following consequential amendments to the Bill—

8A

Page 11, leave out Clause 14

8B

Page 11, leave out Clause 15

8C

Page 12, leave out Clause 16

8D

Page 14, line 12, leave out subsections (6) and (7)

8E

Page 87, leave out lines 14 to 16

8F

Page 88, leave out line 35

8G

Page 88, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert "of a description presecribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and"

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8A to 8G. These amendments are consequential to their agreement to Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8A to 8G.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 9
9 Clause 14, page 11, line 34, at end insert ", or
(e) persons providing services under arrangements made under Schedule 8A to the 1977 Act or section 35,"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
9A Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 10
10

Clause 16, page 12. line 30, after "established" insert "or by a Health Authority"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

10A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 11
11

Page 13, line 10, leave out from "members" to end of line 12 and insert "under paragraph 4(c) above of a Primary Care Trust for which there is a Patients' Forum shall be a person appointed by the Forum."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason—

11A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 12
12

Page 13, line 15. leave out from "trust" to "and" in line 16 and insert "for which there is a Patients' Forum shall be a person appointed by the Forum.","

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

12A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 13
13

Page 13, line 17, leave out "before "any"" and insert "at the beginning"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

13A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 14
14

Clause 17, page 13, line 25, at end insert "through each Patients' Council"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

14A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 15
15

After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—

"National patients' bode for England
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a body corporate ("the national body") to exercise in relation to the health service in England the following functions—

(a) advising the Secretary of State. and such bodies as may be prescribed, with respect to arrangements for public involvement in, and consultation on, matters relating to the health service;

(b) representing to the Secretary of State and such bodies as may be prescribed, and advising him and them on. the views, as respects the health service, of Patients' Forums, Patients' Councils and those voluntary organisations and other bodies appearing to the national body to represent the interests of patients and their carers;

(c) assisting Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils in, and advising them with respect to, the performance of their functions;

(d) such other functions as may be prescribed.

(2) In carrying out its functions the national body shall have regard to any guidance given to it by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in relation to the national body.
(4) The regulations may in particular make provision as to—

(a) the appointment of members:

(b) any qualification or disqualification for membership;

(c) terms of appointment;

(d) circumstances in which a person is to cease to be a member or may be suspended;

(e) the proceedings of the national body;

(f) the discharge of any function of the national body by a committee;

(g) the appointment, as members of a committee, of persons who are not members of the national body

(h) the provision of information to the national body by a health service body. a Patients' Forum or a Patients' Council, including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided;

(i) the funding of the national body;

1141

(j) the payment, to or in respect of members of the national body, of such remuneration, pensions, gratuities and allowances as may be determined in accordance with the regulations;

(k) the preparation and auditing of accounts of the national body.

(5) The regulations may include provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (access to meetings and documents), with or without modifications.
(6) The regulations may authorise the national body to make charges for the provision of advice or other services.
(7) The national body shall—

(a) prepare a report in relation to its activities in each financial year,

(b) as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, send a copy of its report for that year to the Secretary of State,

(c) publish any such report in accordance with prescribed provisions,

(d) make such other reports to the Secretary of State, and supply to him such information, as he may require.

(8) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such persons as appear to him to be appropriate to represent the interests of patients and their carers, and

(b) such other persons (if any) as appear to him to be appropriate.

(9) In this section—
"carer" has the same meaning as in section (Reform of Community Health Councils);
"the health service" has the same meaning as in section 7:
health service body" means—

(a) a Health Authority,

(b) a Special Health Authority,

(c) an NHS trust, or

(d) a Primary Care Trust;

"patient" has the same meaning as in section (Reform of Community Health Councils);
prescribed means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

15A

Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 9 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 9A to 15A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 9 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed far their reasons numbered 9A to 15A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 60
60

Clause 67, page 67, line 11, leave out subsections (1) and (2)

The Commons agreed to this amendment, and made the following consequential amendments to the Bill—

60A

Page 63, line 13, leave out "such offences as are mentioned in subsection (2)(c)" and insert "offences punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such other level as is prescribed"

60B

Page 74, line 7, leave out "67"

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60A and 60B. These amendments are consequential on their agreement to Amendment No. 60. The amendments do not in any way alter the meaning or the remainder of the clause. In another place, my right honourable friend moved that Amendments Nos. 62, 73 and 74 made in this House be rejected because they referred to subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 67 which was removed from the Bill in this House last week and agreed in the Commons earlier today. It would therefore not make sense for them to be part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Comrnons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 60A and 60B.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 62
62

Clause 67, page 68, line 50, at end insert—

"(10A) For the purposes of this section, patient information is "NFIS patient information" if that information (or any of the information from which it is derived) was obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service."

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

62A

Because it relates to provisions left out of the Bill by the Lords.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 62 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 62A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 62 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 62A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 73
73

Clause 75, page 73, line 40, at end insert "(excluding section 67(1) and (2))"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

73A

Because it relates to provisions left out of the Bill by the Lords.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 74
74

Page 74, line 7, after "67" insert "(1) and (2)"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

74A

Because it relates to provisions left out of the Bill by the Lords.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment Nos. 73 and 74 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 73A and 74A. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 73A and74A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Baroness Northover: My Lords, we welcome the acceptance in the other place of the removal of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 67 on anonymised patient data. There was always a danger that useful information for researchers would be lost if those measures were passed.
We also welcome the acceptance in the other place of the provisions on confidential data; in particular, the establishment of a statutory advisory committee, which we on these Benches originally proposed. Action needed to be taken now to strike the right balance between the rights of the patient to confidentiality and the public interest in medical research. Already there has been much damage to research and treatment because patient information has stopped going through to the disease registry.
I am grateful to the Minister for the time and care that he took to ensure that in that crucial area we could reach an agreement. We are therefore happy to accept these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 82
82

Schedule 5. page 90, line 23, leave out "In"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

82A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 83
83

Page 90, line 24, after "Act)'" insert "shall be amended as follows.

'(2) After paragraph 40 insert—

"40A Patients' Forum established under section (Patients' Forums) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.

(3)"

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason—

83A

Because it is inappropriate in consequence of the Commons disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 6 and agreeing to Lords Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 82A and 83A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 82A and83A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.

  Mr Ronnie Biggs: Arrival and Arrest
  Mr Ronnie Biggs: Arrival and Arrest
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Prison Service Performance Indicators
  Prison Service Performance Indicators
  Katanga: Food Situation
  Katanga: Food Situation
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  Commonwealth Development Corporation Annual Report
  Commonwealth Development Corporation Annual Report
  Everything but Arms Initiative and Caribbean Countries
  Everything but Arms Initiative and Caribbean Countries
  Census Form: People of Chinese Background
  Census Form: People of Chinese Background
  Finance Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Finance Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  BBC World Service
  BBC World Service
  Order of Battle
  Order of Battle
  Gulf War Veterans: Compensation
  Gulf War Veterans: Compensation
  Foot and Mouth Payment of Compensation
  Foot and Mouth Payment of Compensation
  Foot and Mouth Cull of Healthy Sheep
  Foot and Mouth Cull of Healthy Sheep
  Foot and Mouth Virus: Importation of Meat
  Foot and Mouth Virus: Importation of Meat
  Fish: Genetic Modification
  Fish: Genetic Modification
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Immunity
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Immunity
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Leicestershire
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Leicestershire
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak: Influence of EU
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak: Influence of EU
  Foot and Mouth: Post Statistics
  Foot and Mouth: Post Statistics
  Farms with Foot and Mouth: Crop Growing
  Farms with Foot and Mouth: Crop Growing
  Cheviot Sheep
  Cheviot Sheep
  Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Foot and Mouth: Burial Pits
  Foot and Mouth: Burial Pits
  Foot and Mouth: Animals awaiting Slaughter on 3 May
  Foot and Mouth: Animals awaiting Slaughter on 3 May
  Foot and Mouth: Effects of Disposal of Carcasses
  Foot and Mouth: Effects of Disposal of Carcasses
  English Fishing Fleet: Restructuring
  English Fishing Fleet: Restructuring
  Forest Enterprise Review
  Forest Enterprise Review
  EU Food Imports: Monitoring
  EU Food Imports: Monitoring
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Haemophiliacs: Infection with Hepatitis C
  Haemophiliacs: Infection with Hepatitis C
  Respiratory Disease
  Respiratory Disease
  Human Remains Working Group
  Human Remains Working Group
  Museums: Statement of Chairman of Resource
  Museums: Statement of Chairman of Resource
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Life Peerages: Prime Minister's Recommendation
  Life Peerages: Prime Minister's Recommendation
  House of Lords Appointments Commission Applications
  House of Lords Appointments Commission Applications